B-17 Flight Model

[Curly]

 Oh goody  

 <nukes popcorn and pulls up a seat>

 Lookit the baby seals slap each other  

[Smut]

LOL Curly

Granted I haven't been as visable here as elsewhere...but suffice to say I know a thing or two about game development, hard core flight sims, testing, and flame wars.

If ole Shacker wants a whooping, I'll be happy to do it...within Pyro's limits, of course. :-)

-Smut

------------------
-----
XO, The squealing Pigs
"Oink! Oink! To War!"

[Shacker]

Oh Now I understand This thread is about

        Drum roll


              YOU!

To witt:

"Developers tend to ignore people with 'tudes...ask me how I know...:-)"

............

"Sorry, I see this as a slam at HTC. YMMV.

Please don't bore me with your "credentials", and I won't do the same."

............

"I know more about beta testing flight sims than you'll ever know."

............

I really like that last one about you. Hell you don't even know who I am. For all you know I could be Bruce Artwick (I'm not but you have no way of knowing that) In case you don't know Bruice Artwick is THE pioneer in PC flight simulation.

Your ego is oughtweighed only by your arrogance. Therefore, I will leave with my original question still unanswered.

Good luck to you and have fun in the arcade.

....................

High Tech you may feel free to delete my username I won't be needing it any longer

out

[This message has been edited by Shacker (edited 11-18-1999).]

[-kier-]

Shacker-

You let one person run you out after one thread? You aren't going to enjoy very many flight sims that way...    

[Smut]

Too funny...

Guess you haven't spent a lot of time in the online combat flight sim world, huh "Shacker"? Bahahaha...

You said:

"I really like that last one about you. Hell you don't even know who I am. For all you know I could be Bruce Artwick (I'm not but you have no way of knowing that) In case you don't know Bruice Artwick is THE pioneer in PC flight simulation."

----end quote

I know who Bruce is, and I don't consider him a pioneer in the combat flight biz. Sorry. Oh, and you have no idea who I am either.  

You were the one posting the wall 'o text replies, including your so-called "checklist" for the games you beta test for...uh huh. Well, frankly I wasn't impressed, because that sure doesn't look like any kind of real game testing checklist I've ever seen...and my point which so clearly offended you is that since I happen to do this for a living, you can't BS me.

So go ahead, pack up your marbles and run home to momma; fact is, you tried to act like a big shot and got caught. A shame really, as lost in all your postering and walls of text were some legitment issues.

-Smut


------------------
XO, The squealing Pigs
"Oink! Oink! To War!"

[Shacker]

That was a checklist for AIRCRAFT performance. Not eye candy etc etc.

Talk to a few Air Force folks or Navy fliers.

First rule of thumb is you MUST be able to effectively FLY the aircraft to employ it as an effective weapons platform.

Most real world Aces were first and foremost first rate pilots.

I have been through just about every 'combat' flight simulation out there. Lot of eye candy. Not a lot of flight model. I also have some few hours in the real thing (military combat flight simulations). Not many cause I was not a military pilot but had friends who were. The differences are glaring and obvious. I asked a few of the guys who built the things how they did it. You know the folks from Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc? Their overwhelming response was:

You take the operating manuual for the plane and plug it in to the physics model. Get the numbers right, then have a few pilots test it and tell you what is and isn't right, fix that. adjust the dials to reflect the correct numbers and then plug in the rest of the stuff.

Of course with your vast knowledge you already knew all that right?

Anyhow you are correct I do not know who you are. Therefore, I will not make such rash statements about your knowledge of flight simulations that you have made about mine.

I have run across a couple folks with similar attitudes. One of em, in my personal opinion (and that of a LOT of other folks) nearly killed one of the best flight sims made because he was unwilling to listen to people who really do fly airplanes and was willing to only use the physics of design having never flown himself.

good day



[This message has been edited by Shacker (edited 11-18-1999).]

[Mark Luper]

Shacker,
Please forgive me. I certainly meant no harm in my post and didn't expect the response you got. I wasn't necessarily trying to flame you but it looks like I inadvertently (sp) did. You are certainly correct to point out things you find that are not realistic enough to suit you.
As much of the b-17 fan that I am I have never flown in one. I only walked through one once. I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination. I am also fairly new at alpha testing and the only thing I have to compare what HTC has built is over 40 years of association with ac of different types. Yes I flew a few, never got my ticket because of the expense and I wanted a family.

There are some less than realistic aspects to all these aircraft I suppose, and there comes a time when one has to decide how much realism is really important to the sim and how much can be fudged for the sake of some reasonable playability. If they were to decide to make it as realistic as absolutely possible, I would be in hog's heaven, but I also realize that they would have trouble paying the bills.

Don't hesitate to post further comments and please find the time to fly the sim. There is a need for good buff pilots in there, those that like to do things in a realistic manner.

Again, forgive me for the flame, was trying to kid with you a bit and it backfired. My bad.

MarkAT

[Shacker]

Nothin ta forgive. Didn't think ya were flaming me Mark.

Figured the smiley face was an indication of the 'tone' of the post and didn't think much else of it.

BTW I know a couple guys who are darn good pilots but never got their tickets for the same or similar reasons.

Flown every build to date and will continue. Guess I need to just e-mail my comments to HT though.

No problem atall I took your post in the manner you posted it. *g*

S!

 

[This message has been edited by Shacker (edited 11-18-1999).]

[Gadfly]

You are making one fatal error, Shacker, this is a game, not a flight simulator.

[hitech]

Shaker you are correct about the rpm and manifold beeing off. Is simply a gauge calibration.

As far as take off rolls being to long I disagree. Btw what field were you testing from? They can make a big difference.

HiTech

[Shacker]

Ah a voice from the folks i been wanting to hear from.

Okay I can deal with guage calibration. No sweat, figured it was something along those lines. Any idea when it'll be slated for a fix? Really wanna wring em out but hard to tell what's going on till the guages are calibrated.

On the takeoff roll thing. Flown from mountain tops, valleys, between the mountains (down the right hand canyon on the map. Bout every field on the right side.)

In case ya don't have em here are the TO roll figiures from the dash 1


 I'll give ya sea level and a couple of other alts the whole list would be sort of exhustive. If you folks need it though I'll transcribe it and mail it to you.

Engine type R-1820-97

 Read head wind, wind speed Gross weight,altitude (in feet) and takeoff run (only listing hard surface runway here.)
0 - 0 - 65,000 - 0 - 3500 feet
0 - 0 - 65,000 - 3000 - 4000 feet
0 - 0 - 65,000 - 6000 - 4600 feet

So at max gross and max density altitude she will require 4,600 feet to get airborne with no headwind factor. A 20 knot headwind will reduce that significantly. I don;t know how long the runways are in AH but the time from power up, brake release to liftoff seems excessive.

If you need all the takeoff, climb and landing data from the dash 1 just holler and i'll either scan it or transcribe it and forward it to ya.

Thanks for the reply

S!

 

[Smut]

Sorry about the length of this one; but the only way to really answer this is USENET-style...

> Talk to a few Air Force folks or Navy
> fliers.

I do, quite frequently in fact.

> I have been through just about
> every 'combat' flight simulation out
> there. Lot of eye candy. Not a lot of
> flight model.

I'm curious, what sims you you consider to have a good flight model?

> I also have some few hours in the real
> thing (military combat flight
> simulations).

Me too. And a fair amount of time around the real jets (first as a maintainer, later as a flight test engineering tech). Mostly F-14's and F/A-18's.

> Not many cause I was not a military pilot
> but had friends who were. The differences
> are glaring and obvious.

Not always, depends on the sim.

> I asked a few of the guys who built the
> things how they did it. You know the folks
> from Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc? Their
> overwhelming response was: You take the
> operating manuual for the plane and plug
> it in to the physics model.

LOL, if only it were that simple. Most Dash Ones/NATOPS don't have the right data for this actually. For certain aspects, yes, but they aren't as useful as actual wind tunnel data and actual stability derivatives.

> Get the numbers right, then have a few
> pilots test it and tell you what is and
> isn't right, fix that. adjust the dials to
> reflect the correct numbers and then plug
> in the rest of the stuff.

Not "dials", try "equations". What exactly is "the rest of the stuff"? Ahh...that's the part we used to call "FM" back when I wore a uniform...

> Of course with your vast knowledge you
> already knew all that right?

And then some, actually. And here's one for you to consider...I'm not even a programmer.

> Anyhow you are correct I do not know who
> you are. Therefore, I will not make such
> rash statements about your knowledge of
> flight simulations that you have made
> about mine.

Only pointing out the holes in your "rash statements".

> I have run across a couple folks with
> similar attitudes.

Gee, you think my handle might give you a clue as to my nature?  

Plus I'm even more cranky than usual because I've been crunching for the last eight months. Almost finished though...

Look dude, I have no ill will towards you. You wanna point out some issues with the B-17 flight model, fine by me...just remember, this is beta, and that Pyro has already said the current engine management systems were not complete. You can be helpful by posting your references and factiods (in the proper forum, I might add) instead of asking if its going to be fixed. The answer to that has already been given.

Whether or not the "final" result matches your expectations is another matter. Game design, including flight sim design, is all about compromise. Not everyone gets that.

Damn this got long. Sorry...I know, I hate that too.

-Smut

------------------
XO, The squealing Pigs
"Oink! Oink! To War!"


[This message has been edited by Smut (edited 11-18-1999).]

[Shacker]

Smut this will be the last reply I give you the courtesy of but here goes.

Where do you think the data that goes into the dash 1 comes from? Wind tunnel test and flight tests that's where.

Same for POH manuals on all aircraft. The FAA (yes they do control military aircraft as well) demands that data published in operational manuals be current and accurate for each type. Any modification to the aircraft, power plants, operating systems etc must be documented in the manual. That is why they change so frequently in the military. ANY MWO that alters the data contained in the -1 must be documented and the manual updated.

The 'other stuff' is everything BUT the flight model. But heck I recon Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and the other folks don't know what they are doing.

By dials they meant exactly what HiTech said about calibrating the instruments. The dials in the cockpit! And yes military combat sims interface with actual instruments not graphic depictions of same, as do commercial simulations for pilot training in the airline industry.

Your knowledge of these areas of simulation is truly astounding.

[Sundog]

Hey Shack, thanks for the info. Now if we can just get you some stick time in some of the fighters! ;-)

[Shacker]

Lol Sun Dog. Wouldn't be much help there.

No actual time in those babys. Although my dream ride is the F4U Corsair. Maybe someday if I live long enuff and my medical doens't cause me ta loose my ticket.

I could have Richard Dickenson take a look at the (51 he's got about 250 haours in one and let him critique it. Gotta call Wright Pat and get a copy of the dash 1 on it though. can't tell too much without the book in front of ya. Heck I need ta order that one anyhow.