These FM's are so realistic it make ya kinda sick...

[miko2d]

 

Originally posted by Jekyll:
Don't kid yourself by-tor.  AH is a BUSINESS and HTC will do anything, and I mean ANYTHING, they feel they have to do to get the revenues they need.

If that means FMs that resemble X-Wings more than WW2 aircraft - they'll do it.

Wouldn't you, if it were your business?

 That could be true in general if we did not know HT and Pyro personally over the period of 6+ years.

 If they ever wanted to just make money with a mass-appeal simplified arcade flight game, they could have just dumbed down the existing FM in some arenas and sold it for $10/months, like iEN did.
 In fact they may still do that while continuing to make the most realistic flight sim for the dedcated hard-core simmers at $30/month.

 But if they ONLY wanted to make money, they could have spent much more time over the last year on the mass-apeal features like eye candy, planeset, etc. instead of flight modelling and damage realism.
 The padlock would have been the first feature along with many SA crutches present in the other lite sims.

 Those guys are definitely interested in the most realistic flight sim possible. Of course they have to pay for it and feed their families. So there will be compromises.
 There will also be errors introduced and corrected that affect the realism.

miko

[Minotaur]

I did not read the entire thread, but yesterday I witnessed an F4U-1C take off.

He took off right after and airshow. He was stacked in line with some Cessna's etc, and an AT-6.  From what I could tell this pilot had no great deal of problems taking off.  Granted this plane was light, but his roll and lift off could not be distinguished between any of the other planes that previosly luanched.  All planes were using a downwind take off for some reason, probably due to traffic and IMO the F4U roll may have been shorter than the rest.  

------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew

"Who's next?"
Naso

[Yeager]

I dont know where this thread came from or where its going but the weenie aspect of takeoffs is disappointing.  I have found 1.04.1 to be a genuine enhancement for me once Im in the air but takeoffs are weak.  My p51 just lumbers down the runway and gives no sensation of weight.  Dont use flaps just up up up.....away.

I hope they give me my caution back.  Funny thing is landing still takes some effort but takeoffs are wussed out.

Yeager

[Pyro]

If the purpose of these changes were merely plability issues, we would not have spent the time we did on it.  That could've been done in a couple days with the old model and not sucked up over a month of valuable development time that we did spend on it.

Some people thought the old model didn't feel right.  Some people think the new model doesn't feel right.  That's always going to be the case because it's not a real plane and everybody has different expectations as to how things should feel.  The difference between then and now is that some people were also showing us real flaws in the model in either mathematical terms or divergence from good available data.  We can't model things so they feel right to everyone, but we can try to keep our numbers on target.  If somebody can show us an error in what we're doing, then we'll do our best to fix it.  That's what happened.

Torque has actually increased in the new model, but it is also counteracted by other forces that we've better modeled.  It's why aileron trim is not usually needed much in real planes.  
 


------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

[This message has been edited by Pyro (edited 09-18-2000).]

[jedi]

Anecdotally, the Corsair was such a beast at low speed that one had to "pre-trim" a large amount of rudder trim on the landing approach, just in case he had to go around.  Failure to do so would create a situation where the pilot could not counteract the torque in the event of full power at low speed.

The torque, as modeled, is easily counteracted with only mild rudder application.  The "feel" is lacking IMO.  That's OK if this is playability-driven, but probably needs more work if you're looking for a more realistic feel.

NOT anecdotally, every propeller-driven plane I've flown has required a moderate, but definitely noticeable, amount of rudder on takeoff to counteract the torque.  The sim requires rudder, but just a touch.  Again, the "feel" is a bit lacking IMO.

And of course, the ability to climb indefinitely at 1000+ fpm while banked 90 degrees indicates an underlying error somewhere.

But overall IMO the new FM is more "believable" than the prior version.

--jedi


------------------

[Daff]

I agree, Jedi..I need more rudder in the 100hp Beagle Pup (With tricycle U/C) I fly than I do in the F4U.

Daff

------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"

[Andy Bush]

jedi

>>Anecdotally, the Corsair was such a beast at low speed that one had to "pre-trim" a large amount of rudder trim on the landing approach, just in case he had to go around. Failure to do so would create a situation where the pilot could not counteract the torque in the event of full power at low speed.<<

I thought we had put this puppy to bed long ago. Failure to trim the rudder has nothing to do with pilots losing control due to torque...improper throttle technique combined with inadequate rudder and aileron input/effectiveness at slow speeds does.

My F4U checklist says nothing about 'pre-trimming' the rudder, nor does the go-around section mention rudder trim.

It may have been a technique that some used...but it sounds somewhat like pulling your car into the garage with the brakes partially on and your the engine above idle just in case you have to stop suddenly.

Andy


[This message has been edited by Andy Bush (edited 09-18-2000).]

[Sharky]

Just like the WBs planes eh Daff?

Sharky

[PC]

The Hawg was a Navy plane, for those that know, thats all that needs to be said about how good it was at low speed.

PC

[wells]

Torque is probably modelled accurately as far as the propeller counteracting engine torque.  If you consider

Horsepower = Torque (lbsft) * rpm / 5252

and that the average fighter can get some 40000 ft.lbs of torque from it's ailerons at 100 mph, it's not difficult to compensate.  Very little trim would be needed, as Pyro said.  However,

A propeller, when suddenly accelerated by use of the throttle, will cause torque.

That is

T = moment of inertia * angular acceleration

Take a 4m diameter prop, with mass of 300 kg
Moment of inertia ~ 1/12 * 300 * 4^2 = 400

Accelerate it from 1000 rpm (105 rad/sec) to 3000 rpm (315 rad/sec) in 1 second, angular acceleration = 210 rad/sec/sec

Now torque = 84000 Nm = 61850 lbsft of torque which exceeds the aircraft's ability to compensate at 100 mph!



[This message has been edited by wells (edited 09-19-2000).]

[Rickenbacker]

Hell, I need more rudder in our Bergfalke III (glider) than in the F4U!

Just kidding. Seriously, though, taking off is pretty easy now, but climbing after takeoff can be quite a challenge with a heavy plane.  

My main wish is that the P-51 get slightly less powerful brakes. It's the only plane that tips over on its nose with full brakes, even if you have the stick in your gut.



------------------
        Rickenbacker (Ricken)

                -ISAF-
the Independent Swedish Air Force

[Badger]

 

Originally posted by miko2d:
 ..... If they ever wanted to just make money with a mass-appeal simplified arcade flight game, they could have just dumbed down the existing FM in some arenas and sold it for $10/months, like iEN did.   In fact they may still do that while continuing to make the most realistic flight sim for the dedcated hard-core simmers at $30/month.   But if they ONLY wanted to make money, they could have spent much more time over the last year on the mass-apeal features like eye candy, planeset, etc. instead of flight modelling and damage realism. The padlock would have been the first feature along with many SA crutches present in the other lite sims.....

Nope, sorry partner.

Back in the late 60's, I once had a Sales Manager who's region was burning cash and not profitable sit in front of me and say, "If we lower our prices, we'll make up our losses through volume."    He actually believed that revenue increases through price reductions was the secret to a successful business.  Needless to say, he found other employment with our competition to help them out.

The following was part of a lengthy discussion thread on this topic and was extracted from our flight sims on-line business focus discussion group.

======================================
Dale Addink (Hitech) said in a public investor's news release:

Start of quote

"10,000 to 20,000 dogfight fanatics to pay $30 per month to play the game.  (Ten thousand customers will give the firm $2 million in yearly profits)."

"This year's goal is to sign up 2,500 customers. That will put the company past break even by the end of the year, he says."

End of quote

......they should be break even (cash neutral) by the end of December.  So, what happens if before then,  iEN sets a $15.95 flat rate and/or Playnet makes a tactical pre-emptive marketing move to help HTC's cash drain, by pre-announcing their own flat rate levels of somewhere between $9.95 and $19.95 per month?

I would assume that to prevent growth from stalling out, that HTC would be forced to drop prices and if they went down to $15.95/month, then they'd need over 5,000 sign-ups just to get back to break even, not counting any incremental equipment costs needed to support the higher numbers.........
=======================================

miko2d, the real answer IMHO, is that the product subscription fees are never going to provide enough revenue to achieve profitability for an on-line business which provides ONLY virtual flight sim entertainment.  The secret to unlocking true sustainable profitability is through value added selling, over and above the base subscriptions (ie: Vanity Plates), plus diversification into other genres of on-line games.  WWIIOL has the right idea, but wow!!!....35 plus people and no revenue stream until next year has to give one a great pucker factor if you're an investor in Playnet.  

Anyway, OT and food for another discussion in the appropriate forum.

Regards,
Badger

Looking for a different kind of environment to discuss your favorite on-line flight simulator?
 http://www.egroups.com/group/flightsimsonline

[jedi]

I stand by my statement.  The Corsair was able to generate enough torque, yaw, and roll moment that you'd need significant rudder input to counteract full power application.  Rudder/aileron trim would make it easier to apply this input and possibly help you to prevent the onset of roll inertia that you couldn't stop before becoming inverted (and dead) at low altitude.

I can post the account of how a REAL Corsair pilot made approaches to the ship, if necessary.  Somehow, I find the fact that the F4U manual makes no mention of trimming unconvincing.  NONE of the flight manuals of the airplanes I've flown mention using the trim.  I kinda think they just assume anyone with wings understands what the trim is for.


--jedi

[This message has been edited by jedi (edited 09-19-2000).]

[scout]

Otherwise right or wrong, the flight "game" with the most pronounced torque effect of shoving the throttle back and forth is FA2.

[Andy Bush]

jedi

>>I can post the account of how a REAL Corsair pilot made approaches to the ship, if necessary. Somehow, I find the fact that the F4U manual makes no mention of trimming unconvincing. NONE of the flight manuals of the airplanes I've flown mention using the trim. I kinda think they just assume anyone with wings understands what the trim is for.<<

Please post that reference...it should be of interest to us all.

BTW...what airplanes have you flown? I don't have any experience with WW2 fighters. Other than jet fighters and airliners, all I've flown are the C-172 and Piper Cub, neither of which has much in the way of significant torque.

As for your comment about folks not understanding trim, the various threads here make that abundantly clear.

Andy