Flight model quirks/flaws

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by NUTTZ
No Offense intended,,BUT If HTC was to create a sym that trully recreates WW2 flight characteristics to a T( which i believe he can),

No one can recreate all aerodynamic physics to a T on these weak powered computers.

Maybe if you had 10 or 12 1Ghz CPUs crunching the numbers you'd maybe get them recreated to a T then.

PCs just aren't fast enough, and no game models flight departure (stalls/spins) as they happen in the real world.
-SW

[Innominate]

Originally posted by DmdBT
Hmmm 242 Suicide Kings...

Isnt that the bunch that got booted from the other sim for hacking?

The other sim?  We're jumpgate refugeees, and complete newbies in AH, hence the questions.

[Jaycex]

I must agree with Inno here on "hence the questions", we are new to this game.


 Kinda wish i never looked at the boards here. I surely will not be posting any questions to this community, with that reaction.(nothing personal). NOT once did i see Roll say he wanted a actual true to life sim, but merely posted questions (that seemed to have some educated comments to go with them as well). Please try to continue this string as a few did with maybe some info. It is clear to me that a lot of you are WAY beyond me in airflight knowledge,and i enjoyed reading those posts that gave some constructive input.


 Oh yeah also could you all please give definintions to some of the terms or phrases used, i am not a physics professor you know. heh:D


OOPS i think that was a question i just asked..umm dammit where's my fire exstinquisher...j/k

[Li`l Snorkey]

Rollio, I agree with all of your observations except the one on "weathervaning". I feel that this is implemented nicely imho.

Could it be a FM flaw on a particular aircraft ? I fly the P-47 mostly, and it weathervanes like a sob, with some practice I've been able to get nice hammerheads done

Apart from that, to add to your list, I feel that the onset of compression is a tad too abrupt in the flight model.

In summary though, among all the premier sims out there (FS2002, WB2.77, Wb3, ,WW2OL, IL2, AW, FA, Janes, etc)  I get the most realistic feel from the Aces High flight model.



Snorkey

[Turbot]

above all else remember always this is not a flight simulator - hell not even close.   But its a real fun game

[Toad]

Originally posted by Rollio
jeez what kind of hornets nest is this community?  I post legitimate questions and I get flamed over and over?

Well, just a few thoughts here.

First I don't think you'd have stirred up a "hornet's nest" (not that what I see here is a "hornet's nest") if you'd have approached this a bit differently and worded your post more like actual questions than accusations. This is particularly true since most of the "regulars" that posted here don't know you; you're pretty "new" to this board.

For example, you could easily have left out or reworded the "glaring errors" part. That to me is more of an accusation than a legitimate question.

Secondly, none of us know upon what data you base your... questions... nor do we have any idea how you reached your conclusions. It'd be helpful if you took a bit more time with the post and explained why you believe what you believe. That I think would generate a more restrained, informative response from some really intelligent and well-informed folks that frequent this board.

Third, statements like "Why can't I do a proper whipstall or hammerhead?" and assigning the blame to the flight modeling is going to make you look a bit foolish in the eyes of players that CAN do these things in the game. I assure you, there are many that can. Lots of those guys shoot me down. So, if you can't do these things, people assume you are either trolling or just haven't really taken the time to learn how to do them.

Anyway, as I said, if you'd take some time and reframe your questions as questions rather than take an accusatory tone and if you'd provide some more explanation of your questions, then you'd probably generate some worthwhile debate.

[Daff]

AH's departure model appears to be very similar to the WB-one, where you need to pull more than 1G to spin the plane. It will stall below that, but it will just mush it out, unless you pull more than 1 G.

As for the rudder, it does seem to have very little effect at slow speeds and it appears that the slipstream have very little effect on the rudder.

Daff

[Urchin]

OK, I know what a hammer head is.. I can't really do them though.  Whats a whip-stall?

[Toad]

To save argument, here's definitions from a website. If one disagrees, one should e-mail them, not me.

AEROBATICS

The Hammerhead turn: Just before stalling in the vertical position, the airplane pivots on the wingtip and cuts a straight line through the horizon. A 180 degrees change of direction in an area as small as the width of a main avenue.

The whip stall: The airplane stalls in a vertical position and starts sliding backwards!

[Urchin]

Ohhh.. I thought that was called a 'tail-slide'.  Same thing I guess.

[Toad]

Yep. I'd have said tailslide to that definition. Perhaps the "whip stall" factors in when the nose snaps down after the slide begins.

Lots of different terminology out there.

[Rollio]

My definition of a whipstall is to pull directly vertical, then stop.   As soon as you start falling backwards the air blowing across the tailfeathers grabs them and causes the plane to whip VERY QUICKLY to a nose down position.  In aces high this never happens on certain planes, espescially the lightweight ones like the 109 and zero.  The plane will just sort of lazily fall off to a noze down direction.  Inputting commands in the wrong direction (when falling backwards controls should be reversed) will counteract the effect to the point that it's it's possible to remain in a tail down position.  In reality, a plane will not have the ability to remain in a tail down position for very long at all as the majority of it's mass is in a high position and it will want to tip over due to gravity and the air blowing up against the tailfeathers will aggravate this effect even more, causing a very violent change in direction.  Flying models, whipstalls and hammerheads were the very first aerobatic maneuvers I learned.  Their combat potential is significant as well, as it is a much faster way to reverse your direction of travel than turning or pulling and immelman.

[Toad]

Ok, I see what you are saying. Much better tone to it, I might add.

Now, which WW2 planes that we have in AH do not have the ability to whipstall or hammerhead that you think should be able to do so?

Do you have any documentation or supporting evidence?

I think that's sort of how you should proceed here. If you have evidence for the Zero or 109, then present it to HTC.

They're pretty responsive if you can support your claim.

Good luck!

[Innominate]

Could someone post films of a hammerhead/whipstall?

[Rollio]

The problem is not so much that the planes can't do a hammerhead/whipstall, many of them can, however all of them should be able to do so and always.  Compare it to a cannon round being fired straight up, the law of gravity dictates that it will eventually stop and come right back down.  The same should apply to planes in a vertical with zero velocity, it should be inevitable that they stall in such a matter that the nose drops out FAST.  Now I'm not saying that a tailslide isn't possible, it is, however not for long.  A plane that is falling tail first cannot remain in that condition for any significant length of time (with models I was able to drop perhaps 10 feet at the most in this manner or about 2 1/2 plane lengths).  It should be predictable.

Some planes have been pointed out to me as behaving properly in this case (at least in all trials I've done on them).  The P47 is a shining example of this.  The larger planes in general seem to follow this pattern however I have had an undamaged B17 fall 3 thousand feet tail first so it's not an absolute.