Dynamic flight model?

[addy]

F4U, I don't know how or why (I am no means a physics professor!!) though I would guess it might have something to do with control suface size to wing size ( I really dont know!). But I can dig up the performance charts for a clipped 9 and a reg 9, and the difference is amazing

[F4UDOA]

Addy,

You don't need to show any performance. numbers. I was just a little frustrated with some of the negative feedback.

In anycase it is not like this has ever been done.

Check here for Extreme Airracing. They may be a racing simm more than a combat simm but they have the most detailed Physics model bar anyone in the market. And they also provide Whitepapers on the aerodynamics on the web site.

http://www.xtremeairracing.com/

Check out these features in PDF on the flight model features
 FM PDF

I just think that people are saying I can't be done. What I'm saying is that it already has been done.

[SKurj]

Originally posted by fats
SKurj,

what you see visually is piece of cake, switching to a different model would be like - uh - 2 lines of code. Developing a system for the FM changes is a different thing.


// fats

Well if its a piece of cake... Why hasn't it already been done with current aircraft?  190A5,A8, spit9, P47 (based on gun package) as examples...


SKurj

[ccvi]

Originally posted by acepilot2
I think we already have all of these, if not, most of them.  The way i lighten my ammo load is actually get rid of it before i take off.  Yes, if I have Jug with 2 500 lb bombs, and I only want one, I drop it on the runway before starting my engine.  As it said above we have the WEP, too.

A Jug with one 500 lbs bomb (if the other was dropped) doesn't fly too well. Better take the center bomb plus rockets and jettinson them

[Soda]

Are you sure that racks/rails really hurt performance?  I ran several tests a couple of months ago on this (Mossie, Typhoon, P-38) and not once was that the case.  Yes, when the ordinance was on the rail/rack there was a penalty, but once dropped, it was like the rack was never there.  I ran like 30 tests with different ordinance/fuel/ammo loadouts just to be sure, filmed them all so I knew I was getting digitally accurate speeds, and the largest variation I had was 1mph.  Seriously, I compared to an aircraft launched in a totally clean fashion, had fuel set to 0 burn, and compared to aircraft where I'd ejected the ordinance, and the difference was zero... in one case, it was 1 mph.

-Soda
The Assassins.

[SKurj]

HT said for rockets I believe that once fired there is no penalty (said in the MA.. long time ago can't be 100% certain)

Though it has also been stated that the pylons on F4u-1d are fixed and factored into the fm... but I don't know if that was all the pylons,, or just for the bombs...


SKurj

[F4UDOA]

Skurj,

Your right. The pylon are always on the F4U-1D regardless of loadout.

They slow it down by 8MPH on the deck and about 10MPH at 20K.

And I have the docs to prove it.

[Karnak]

Here is an example of a dynamic flight model option I'd like:

Many Mosquito Mk VIs had the ducted saxaphone exhaust that ours has, but many also lacked it.  It would be nice to be able to choose to take it or leave it.

The difference is that without the ducted exhaust the Mosquito is about 15mph faster, with the ducted exhaust the Mosquito's exhaust flares are suppressed.

The open exhaust ejectors are more appropriate for day use, and the ducted exhaust was used for night-fighter operations.


I would dearly like to have that extra 15mph of the day intruders in the speed demon infested AH MA.

[F4UDOA]

Exactly Karnak!!

Instead of having to wait 6 months for a new varient have an options list for A/C for different features that were historically available.

Every time Dehavilland wanted to add a new feature to the Mossie they didn't re-invent the Aeroplane they just added a feature or two. Why can't we do the same??

Just like loadout options.

Example

F4U-1D
Clipped wings
External stores pylons
Rocket rails
Centerline bomb rack
20 mill cannons (would be a F4U-1C then with a perkcost)
Folding wings (Would be a FG-1D)


These are variable features that all existed on the F4U-1D. Why should I wait for a new paint job when I can just add or delete options from the A/C.

All historically accurate BTW.

[J_A_B]

Such a system as this wouldn't make much difference because EVERYONE would be doing it.  So we'd basically have a "WW2 game" where everbody was flying maxed-out hotrods....the planes would still perform pretty much the same compared to each other so nobody would really gain much of an advantage.

J_A_B

[F4UDOA]

JAB,

I'm not trying to develope a system that would give anyone an advantage.

I would like to however be able to skip the Non-sense of waiting for a Spit IX LF or HF (I believe those are the correct designations) or ME109G2, G6, G10, G1000 etc.

I think the basic A/C should be the base model then you select an engine. Then other items are highlighted, then select aramament, then ordinance etc.

I just don't think that HTC should have to rebuild every FM and artwork from scatch to give us a subvarient that may only be different by a few HP,Lbs or gun package.

We could already have the P-47N/M, F6F-5N, etc, etc if we could had a P-47 selection with a configure menu instead of having three seperate P-47's in the menu now while we wait for 2 more.

Just add clipped wings and a uprated power plant and lets go. It should be no worse than adding a new bomb or rocket to the ordinance menu.

I keep hearing people say they don't want it but nobody ever says they don't want a new version of an existing A/C. Why not just add the features instead of re-inventing the wheel??

[J_A_B]

I see what you're saying, but it might not be terribly easy to implement AND get it right.  Look at how many bugs are present even in the current planes' flightmodels.  

Perhaps, if such a system is practical, rather than make it player-end HTC could use it TO add new variants of units more quickly.

J_A_B

[F4UDOA]

JAB,

The quick addition of varients is exactly what I hope for.

[Furball]

Originally posted by J_A_B
Such a system as this wouldn't make much difference because EVERYONE would be doing it.  So we'd basically have a "WW2 game" where everbody was flying maxed-out hotrods....the planes would still perform pretty much the same compared to each other so nobody would really gain much of an advantage.

J_A_B

They wouldn't if it cost perks to implement each improvement. I for one would love a better mosquito, and more importantly a L.F. Spitfire.

As for the clipped wing F4u's it was the RAF that first did that, while the Americans used the f4u as a land fighter. The RN used it as a carrier borne fighter but they needed to clip 18" off the wings to fit below decks on British carriers (which had less hangar head room than US carriers), i have no idea how this effected flight performance though.

[g00b]

Look it's very simple. In order for HTC to implement anything new it has to be tested thoroughly. If you were to add multiple options for each aircraft you are talking hundreds and even thousands of possible variations. How are they going to test that? Then you're going to have people whining that the C.G. is off on plane X when they select 1/2 load of ammo, 3 rockets, 37%fuel, with clipped wings or some such.

Yes it could be done, look at X-Plane. But I actually prefer the FM for AH over X-Plane. By having a finite planeset and options you can really fine tune and tweak each particular aircraft. Something you cannot do with a super configurable system. BTW,  AH does have a Dynamic Flight Model, I think you meant something like a Dynamic Plane Configuration or something like that.