Hi lazs...
You have asked a fair question that unfortunately has a long answer to ensure that the concept is not lost in the emotional and irrational flaming rhetoric that often accompanies these boards. This whole concept of which program has the potential to be more realistic has to be removed from the realm of user emotional "feel" and into a more logical approach, based upon facts. I have posted some of this to you and others before when this AH/WB comparison thread starts every week, but either people don't understand it, or simply don't want to let those facts get in the way of them preaching their version of the Gospel.
Warbirds and Aces High are competitive products with a dynamic and vocal group of proponents, who on many occasions have attempted to compare the merits of each. I have read a lot of volatile threads on the AGW, iEN and the AH BBS environments, filled with anecdotal information. I also have read as much as I could find in both written and on-line electronic publications that have reviewed both of these fine products. The thing that struck me the most in digesting all of this material, was the complete lack of base empirical data, or real time flight experience with any of the equipment represented in either simulation.
To validate the flight experience viewpoint, I posted a topic a few weeks ago on both AGW and AH BBS titled "How much real Warbirds -time on type- do you have?". I wanted to find out if there was anyone who actually had stick time on these aircraft. The closest I got to reasonable "air time" was a virtual pilot named AKNiteflyr who has logged 50 Hours second in command time of a B25. So, the conclusion must be that the rest of us are actually using manufacturer's flight test data combined with war office type testing white papers, in order to draw conclusions about the validity and realism of these simulators.
That lead me to my own POH (Pilot's Operating Handbook) for my 1974 Cessna 172M. It clearly stated many of the test results and parameters for this aircraft, including the flight envelope that a real life Cessna 172M "test" pilot was able to perform certain maneuvers within. I guarantee you, my aircraft today does not perform up to any of the numbers indicated in this manual on any metric you wish to examine, plus my flying skill does not in any way come close to that of a test pilot. Why do the published numbers not match reality? First, they were simply averages themselves affected subsequently by everything from original manufacturing tolerances, to normal aging of engine and airframe components, to how well the last mechanic setup and tuned the engine. Add to this, things that pilots have done while flying it such as overstressing the airframe and you easily end up with a situation where no two aircraft are the same. I then went around the airport and asked owners of various planes from Cessna's, Piper's, Pitt's, Gulfstream's, you name it. None of the pilots I spoke to said their planes met the POH numbers and many said that no two planes of the same type would perform the same anyway. I think they thought I was peculiar for asking such an obvious question.
Just because the POH of a 1944 P-51 says that it does Xmph at X,000 feet, or the secret war office papers on a captured 190 show the results they achieved with that particular plane using a test pilot, doesn't mean that all planes of that type simulated by some computer programmer's code in the year 2000, should perform exactly that way. Obviously, certain fundamental airfoil design results would hold true, such as a Spit 9 turning better than a 190 and so on, which is true in both games, but a lot of the adversarial discussion I read was more about which program was more true to realistic flight dynamics.
So, what does all of this mean? To me it left a dilemma of asking myself, how would anyone ever be able to present any data on these medium, or in reviews that was meaningful at all in saying what is realistic or not, then go about trying to use such questionable data within the context of comparing two flight simulation products. As a result and with all due respect, I don't think any mathematics expert or historical librarian approach to determining flight characteristics will ever work in this software driven world of flight simulation.
Trying to think outside the box I began to wonder if there was any other way of approaching these two products that would permit the viewer to clearly see a reasonable comparison, but not be left with an overwhelming amount of conflicting data. It dawned on me that a spreadsheet given to the two organizations who produce these products, iEN and HTC, might be workable. It would take an objective approach that at no time drew any subjective conclusions.
The base data will be objectively clear and no qualitative conclusions are attempted. The only issue open to question is, does the product either do or not do what has been listed. I have so far built up over 10 major categories and 25 sub categories, filling in the physics logic and data that each vendor's product has used or programmed. It has recently been expanded to cover more than just flight dynamic program equations and now includes other categories covering items such as gunnery model, collision model, damage model, view system, supporting tools, graphics options, platforms supported, etc. I have vetted it through outside eyes and had very positive feedback with a number of people saying "wow..I didn't know that!".
Example:
The software programming approaches of both games, specifically relating to ONLY ONE element of the flight model programming demonstrates the following:
Warbirds v2.76r0
============
Overall System =Full force 6 degrees of freedom.
Basic System = 2 point lift and drag model.
Dynamic CofG (Center of Gravity) Changes = Weapons ONLY.
Moment of Inertia Changes = NONE.
Aces High v1.02
============
Overall System = Full force 6 degrees of freedom.
Basic System = Sectional airfoil component modeling, covering all components of the airplane. Also dynamically uses CM (Center of Mass) and CP (Center of Pressure) changes.
Dynamic CofG (Center of Gravity) Changes = All loaded components of the airplane.
Moment of Inertia Changes = All loaded components of the airplane.
Therefore, if one feeds EXACTLY the same empirical data specifications for any given aircraft into both programs, which program do you think should produce a more accurate result, purely from a physics software modeling point of view? Simply put, which one should fly more like the real world aircraft of the same type was actually designed to do? The ONLY unknown left would be what flight data specifications did HTC or iEN supply their respective program code as variables. Incorrect variables fed in will yield incorrect flight dynamics. Also, even with perfect figures and given the known deviance from POH and design statistics in all aircraft discussed earlier, the same randomness and under performance would probably make the resultant flight model appear better than it was in real life anyway. I would ask you, how could the WB v2.76 "sporty" turn rate be realistic based upon a limited "2 point lift and drag" flight model, that simply leaves you sitting in a virtual plane in the middle of two wings only? If people want realism, then lets talk realism, but this incessant wandering off into statements that something doesn't "feel" realistic is a waste of bandwidth. I'd sure like to hear what the aeronautical engineers using these games have to say about the two programs disparate approaches to being realistic, based upon the above formulae as an example, wouldn't you?
I would like to give this first draft to iEN and HTC programming staff for their input prior to publishing it on neutral WEB site. It would be my hope that this would become a living document and as the WB and AH products evolve and improve, the base premise this data represents would also be changed in real time as new versions of software are released. I'd also like to see MS CFS and WWII On-line flight component added to it as columns. The result is that the user community would have someplace to compare "apples to apples" as opposed to the current anecdotal, combative and adversarial flame fests.
This is not a be all and end all solution, but I think once you see some of the factual metrics and formulas used to actual write code and program these two flight simulation products, there will be some interesting and more positive community reaction. I hope to have the vetted, signed off and completed version ready within the next 2-3 weeks, but that time frame will dependent upon cooperation from iEN and HTC. HTC is in the process of analyzing it from their point of view as we speak. I needed to know from iEN, to whom should I send it for a similar evaluation for factual correctness. They did respond via private e-mail yesterday giving me their CFO's name and e-mail address, so I will send it off to him once I receive a final draft back from HTC, perhaps next week now.
Once the first iteration is complete, signed-off and published, it is my intent to turn ownership of this over to someone else within our community, who possibly flies both simulations and hopefully knows Hotseat and Hitech fairly well. Obviously, they should also be viewed by both respective communities as beyond reproach from a fairness and objectivity point of view.
Regards,
Badger
