Author Topic: Paradoxes of Flight Modeling Skepticism  (Read 1579 times)

Offline morfiend

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10470
Re: Paradoxes of Flight Modeling Skepticism
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2011, 06:20:39 PM »
but do all crackpots?  :headscratch:




  Of course,they're steeping in the teapot!




    :salute

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20386
Re: Paradoxes of Flight Modeling Skepticism
« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2011, 06:49:48 PM »
I remind myself often that there was a time where getting to 'fly' a P-38 was nothing more then a dream.  I remember lying on my bed as a kid looking up at the formation of model B-17s and 24s hanging from my ceiling with the model 109s, Spits, 51s etc 'fighting' around them.  I wondered what it would be like to be able to shrink down enough to get in one of them to see what it looked like.  Unlike my cartoon 38, I would have not been 'moving' and seeing through the glue stained windscreens, product of a 10 year old's modeling skills might have ruined the view!

As the model building got better it was to detail them, or even better build the old Monogram "Phantom" Mustang with the battery powered prop and gear that you could lower and raise.  The ping pong table made a great carrier deck for those Monogram USN birds.  You could take your SBD out and drop it's bomb, or take the TBF and drop the torp.  Of course those P51Bs raced around an imaginary sky chasing imaginary 109s too.

Flying lessons follow and while expensive, you at least could pretend you were really flying a WW2 fighter.  I remember vividly my instructor getting on my case about squaring off my downwind, base and final legs during landing.  "You aren't flying a P51!"  He told me.  Of course there was the time a buddy and I, both having just soloed, worked it out so we both went up at the same time.  We tried to fly formation without much luck and then 'dive bombed' a couple of farm houses.  We tried to talk to each other, thinking we were on the right channel.  Turns out we were on the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport approach frequency.  If two 17 years olds in Piper Warriors could do a quick double take and try and hide in the sky, it was us, as we both broke opposite directions and ran for 'home' as fast as we could.

College comes along as does going broke.  Marriage, kids, and still broke.  Along comes this thing called a computer and a green screen game called Microsoft Flight Simulator.  It's got a dogfight game!  OK so it's stick airplanes that can only shoot each other in the face.  No matter how you try and tail chase, it's always nose on.  But the imagination of that little kid comes back in a flash.  SWOTL, Aces over Europe and then a chance meeting with Airwarrior on AOL.  I get to fly with and against real people!  Into Relaxed Realism we all go turning like mad, never blacking out and having an absolute blast!

It's then you run into the purists and the flight model critics.  Full Realism is the place to be!  That's how it feels to fly a real plane!  So you make the move and struggle along trying to learn the 'right way'.  It's then, while sitting at the home of an actual WW2 combat pilot who also flies Airwarrior that you hear him say that he preferred relaxed realism because it compensates for the 'feel' of actually flying.  "Is it anything like the real deal?  The vet gives you a smile and says no, but it's fun.  He goes on to explain that he prefers trying to sink carriers with a TBM.

On to AH and the graphics are better, and the game overall just seems nicer.  The Flight model critics are out in even greater force.  But having done this long enough, it's hard to get too worked up about the flight model anymore.  All I know is that little kid in me, who dreamed of flying glue spattered model planes, still can't get over the fact he gets to 'fly' his cartoon 38s with his buddies and pretend he's a cartoon fighter pilot! :)

Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Re: Paradoxes of Flight Modeling Skepticism
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2011, 08:56:48 PM »
Well written, dtango and guppy.

I don't think the orbits of the teapots feel right, though...

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Paradoxes of Flight Modeling Skepticism
« Reply #18 on: July 19, 2011, 09:08:34 AM »
I remind myself often that there was a time where getting to 'fly' a P-38 was nothing more then a dream.  I remember lying on my bed as a kid looking up at the formation of model B-17s and 24s hanging from my ceiling with the model 109s, Spits, 51s etc 'fighting' around them.  I wondered what it would be like to be able to shrink down enough to get in one of them to see what it looked like.  Unlike my cartoon 38, I would have not been 'moving' and seeing through the glue stained windscreens, product of a 10 year old's modeling skills might have ruined the view!

As the model building got better it was to detail them, or even better build the old Monogram "Phantom" Mustang with the battery powered prop and gear that you could lower and raise.  The ping pong table made a great carrier deck for those Monogram USN birds.  You could take your SBD out and drop it's bomb, or take the TBF and drop the torp.  Of course those P51Bs raced around an imaginary sky chasing imaginary 109s too.

Flying lessons follow and while expensive, you at least could pretend you were really flying a WW2 fighter.  I remember vividly my instructor getting on my case about squaring off my downwind, base and final legs during landing.  "You aren't flying a P51!"  He told me.  Of course there was the time a buddy and I, both having just soloed, worked it out so we both went up at the same time.  We tried to fly formation without much luck and then 'dive bombed' a couple of farm houses.  We tried to talk to each other, thinking we were on the right channel.  Turns out we were on the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport approach frequency.  If two 17 years olds in Piper Warriors could do a quick double take and try and hide in the sky, it was us, as we both broke opposite directions and ran for 'home' as fast as we could.

College comes along as does going broke.  Marriage, kids, and still broke.  Along comes this thing called a computer and a green screen game called Microsoft Flight Simulator.  It's got a dogfight game!  OK so it's stick airplanes that can only shoot each other in the face.  No matter how you try and tail chase, it's always nose on.  But the imagination of that little kid comes back in a flash.  SWOTL, Aces over Europe and then a chance meeting with Airwarrior on AOL.  I get to fly with and against real people!  Into Relaxed Realism we all go turning like mad, never blacking out and having an absolute blast!

It's then you run into the purists and the flight model critics.  Full Realism is the place to be!  That's how it feels to fly a real plane!  So you make the move and struggle along trying to learn the 'right way'.  It's then, while sitting at the home of an actual WW2 combat pilot who also flies Airwarrior that you hear him say that he preferred relaxed realism because it compensates for the 'feel' of actually flying.  "Is it anything like the real deal?  The vet gives you a smile and says no, but it's fun.  He goes on to explain that he prefers trying to sink carriers with a TBM.

On to AH and the graphics are better, and the game overall just seems nicer.  The Flight model critics are out in even greater force.  But having done this long enough, it's hard to get too worked up about the flight model anymore.  All I know is that little kid in me, who dreamed of flying glue spattered model planes, still can't get over the fact he gets to 'fly' his cartoon 38s with his buddies and pretend he's a cartoon fighter pilot! :)



That story kind of sounds familiar.   :D  Although, I did my dive bombing in a Cessna 150 against I-29 vehicle traffic, comms chatter with a "wingmate" in a Cessna 173 on the Sioux Falls airport frequency, at the age of 35.   ;)  Oh, but being broke as can be, too.   
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline hitech

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12425
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
Re: Paradoxes of Flight Modeling Skepticism
« Reply #19 on: July 19, 2011, 01:24:16 PM »
I had to stop work on AH this morning.

I had ran smack dab into a very definite problem that had to be solved immediately.

I had to go back to the drawing board and completely come up with a new design for my krusty meter. You see my old one finally was pegged to the limit after this thread, and a new design that could read larger quakes was needed.

HiTech


Offline LLogann

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4947
      • Candidz.com
Re: Paradoxes of Flight Modeling Skepticism
« Reply #20 on: July 19, 2011, 01:32:48 PM »
 :lol




I can't lie..... I found Krusty's word to hold far more truth than might have been seen, or understood! 

See Rule #4
Now I only pay because of my friends.

Offline Citabria

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5149
Re: Paradoxes of Flight Modeling Skepticism
« Reply #21 on: July 19, 2011, 02:03:18 PM »
I suggest using an advanced ww2 trainer designed to mimic ww2 fighter flight characteristics before proposing any flight model problems with AH to give credibility to any suggestions you feel compelled to make.

all data thus must be filtered through the high decible noise and vibration of a radial engine of at least 600hp.
aircraft weight of 5700lbs is preferable as is a birdcage canopy and fabric covered control surfaces.
at least two large calibre machine guns installed is a plus.





« Last Edit: July 19, 2011, 02:08:52 PM by Citabria »
Fester was my in game name until September 2013

Offline shdo

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 84
Re: Paradoxes of Flight Modeling Skepticism
« Reply #22 on: July 22, 2011, 02:41:36 PM »
You know what I don't see in AH that I used to see in WB?  Flight Testing.

Now I KNOW HT does good work.  But one of the ways I KNOW it is the full and comprehensive flight testing that used to be done in WB.  I see Krusty complaining all the time but I don't see him bringing *data* to the table to back it up.

I'm not talking data read from a book or a story. I'm talking a comprehensive study, using repeatable documented scientific methods with test plans and results that can be re-run by multiple people to verify both the methods and the results.  Then posting ALL of the information - methodology, findings, results and variations from manuals/manufacturers documentation.

Let me show you an example http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/index.html of a test suite doing just that.

Having said all of this, I trust HT is *getting it right*.  I'm not being a fanboy, it's just that I've had years of experience with his product(s) and I've seen that he gets it right much more often then not.

shdo - AH
shdo 157 TFG, The Swamp Foxes - WB

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23931
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: Paradoxes of Flight Modeling Skepticism
« Reply #23 on: July 22, 2011, 03:14:04 PM »
You know what I don't see in AH that I used to see in WB?  Flight Testing.

Now I KNOW HT does good work.  But one of the ways I KNOW it is the full and comprehensive flight testing that used to be done in WB.  I see Krusty complaining all the time but I don't see him bringing *data* to the table to back it up.

I'm not talking data read from a book or a story. I'm talking a comprehensive study, using repeatable documented scientific methods with test plans and results that can be re-run by multiple people to verify both the methods and the results.


We do have quite a number of players that have done this stuff in the past and are still doing it. Some had run quite extensive tests, accompanied with full descriptions, graphs & films. Almost all the tests in your link have beeb done for most planes and the data been compiled & published in various places.  Players like Widewing, Kweassa, Badboy, and many, many more come to my mind.  But being a community larger by magnitudes, this stuff is often kinda buried under a pile of "FIX THE XXX - I don't care about data, I once saw one in a museum, I know what I'm talking about!" threads that generate much more attention. Reason, sound data and a lot of patience has lead to some changes and adjustment in the past, and most probably will continue to do so.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2011, 03:15:51 PM by Lusche »
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

In November 2025, Lusche will return for a 20th anniversary tour. Get your tickets now!

Offline mbailey

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5677
Re: Paradoxes of Flight Modeling Skepticism
« Reply #24 on: July 22, 2011, 03:56:30 PM »
I remind myself often that there was a time where getting to 'fly' a P-38 was nothing more then a dream.  I remember lying on my bed as a kid looking up at the formation of model B-17s and 24s hanging from my ceiling with the model 109s, Spits, 51s etc 'fighting' around them.  I wondered what it would be like to be able to shrink down enough to get in one of them to see what it looked like.  Unlike my cartoon 38, I would have not been 'moving' and seeing through the glue stained windscreens, product of a 10 year old's modeling skills might have ruined the view!

As the model building got better it was to detail them, or even better build the old Monogram "Phantom" Mustang with the battery powered prop and gear that you could lower and raise.  The ping pong table made a great carrier deck for those Monogram USN birds.  You could take your SBD out and drop it's bomb, or take the TBF and drop the torp.  Of course those P51Bs raced around an imaginary sky chasing imaginary 109s too.

Flying lessons follow and while expensive, you at least could pretend you were really flying a WW2 fighter.  I remember vividly my instructor getting on my case about squaring off my downwind, base and final legs during landing.  "You aren't flying a P51!"  He told me.  Of course there was the time a buddy and I, both having just soloed, worked it out so we both went up at the same time.  We tried to fly formation without much luck and then 'dive bombed' a couple of farm houses.  We tried to talk to each other, thinking we were on the right channel.  Turns out we were on the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport approach frequency.  If two 17 years olds in Piper Warriors could do a quick double take and try and hide in the sky, it was us, as we both broke opposite directions and ran for 'home' as fast as we could.

College comes along as does going broke.  Marriage, kids, and still broke.  Along comes this thing called a computer and a green screen game called Microsoft Flight Simulator.  It's got a dogfight game!  OK so it's stick airplanes that can only shoot each other in the face.  No matter how you try and tail chase, it's always nose on.  But the imagination of that little kid comes back in a flash.  SWOTL, Aces over Europe and then a chance meeting with Airwarrior on AOL.  I get to fly with and against real people!  Into Relaxed Realism we all go turning like mad, never blacking out and having an absolute blast!

It's then you run into the purists and the flight model critics.  Full Realism is the place to be!  That's how it feels to fly a real plane!  So you make the move and struggle along trying to learn the 'right way'.  It's then, while sitting at the home of an actual WW2 combat pilot who also flies Airwarrior that you hear him say that he preferred relaxed realism because it compensates for the 'feel' of actually flying.  "Is it anything like the real deal?  The vet gives you a smile and says no, but it's fun.  He goes on to explain that he prefers trying to sink carriers with a TBM.

On to AH and the graphics are better, and the game overall just seems nicer.  The Flight model critics are out in even greater force.  But having done this long enough, it's hard to get too worked up about the flight model anymore.  All I know is that little kid in me, who dreamed of flying glue spattered model planes, still can't get over the fact he gets to 'fly' his cartoon 38s with his buddies and pretend he's a cartoon fighter pilot! :)



One of the best things ive ever read on these boards.......Thanks  :aok
Mbailey
80th FS "Headhunters"

Ichi Go Ichi E
Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.

When the game is over, the Kings and Pawns all go into the same box.

Offline shdo

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 84
Re: Paradoxes of Flight Modeling Skepticism
« Reply #25 on: July 22, 2011, 09:06:32 PM »
True Lusche,

knowing the people who used to fly this when it started and knowing the kind of people that fly these type of sims i'm sure people did/do test.

still frustrating when those who yell down anticdotes use them to prove thier points and see nothing wrong with doing it both ways.

C'est la vie.


shdo