B-17 Flight Model

[Shacker]

IOW

If I have to worry about stalls that are realistic, BOther with energy management during a dog fight, sweat landings, worry about engine failure from pushing the power plant too hard....etc etc..... waaaaaa it ain't no fun and I don't wanna do it..

Okay arcade it is and I'm outa here until i hear differently from the developers.

Don't delude yourselfs here all the above were real concerns for real pilots in real combat. If it is too much for you to handle then you are definately NOT be the big air ace you invision yourselves ta be here folks.

Self dilusion is a wonderful thing when ya live in a dreamworld...

C ya.....

[Mr.ED]

WOW! I got to the end.

First of all, a standing ovation for Goombah.
 
I so enjoyed your first post (and the rest) that I am sending it to my AW3 Commander, It better explains why I would rather spend my time flopping around in AH, than yawning in AW3.

I freely admit, I have know idea what the heck I'm doing tring to fly a WWII high performace aircraft, heck I spend a lot of time at our local flight museum, talking with the Old dudes, just to learn to fly this crate.
It is good to see all you, so empassioned over the flight models, makes me feel like I'm getting my monies worth (or will be when I get charged for this)
Thanks guys!

Good post Humble!

Mr.ED
Pony pilot wannabe
Knights

[Dingy]

 

Don't delude yourselfs here all the above were real concerns for real pilots in real combat. If it is too much for you to handle then you are definately NOT be the big air ace you invision yourselves ta be here folks.

Shacker, I think you are reading more into this than there is.  Granted, there needs to be a tradeoff between realism and playability.  This has been said before and will continue to be said again.  This is NOT a sim which attempts to totally recreate the flight experience from WWII.  You dont need to go through a pre-flight checklist, nor trouble yourself with tower control nor mess with fuel mixture.  Sure there are some pilots out there that want the real deal but probably many more who just want the fun aspects of pilot to pilot combat without all the secondary aspects of being a WWII pilot.

Most of us surely are not looking for the ultra-sim where you need to radio for ground clearance, adjust fuel mixtures, etc.  What we are looking for is a realistic flight model complete with spins, stalls, etc.  

What I think most are alluding to is that if the F4U-1D flight manual stated that at at full throttle MAP should show 44.5 InHg, the game shouldnt be expected to show this same level of detail.  As long as the general flight details are there, most should be happy.  Remember, you cant please all the people all the time.

-Ding

[Pyro]

 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/000561.html



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

"The side with the fanciest uniforms loses."

[Minotaur]

After more thought on my part, I hope to give all factions of this debate some "Food for Thought"

Earlier in the thread "The Arcadishness" of some "Flight Simulations" was compared to the "Game of Golf".  In the light of how the logic was presented, this was agreeable and correct.

Take a moment to consider these ideas I am presenting in your future arguements.  Hopefully too inlighten one perspective of what AH is or should be.  

The "Game of Golf", a surprizingly simple game, has fascinated people for the last 400 to 600 years.  The "Player Base for Golf" compares to the "Player Base for Simulated Flight" the same as a "Squeak Toy Knight" has chances of slaying a "Mythical Dragon".  It just doesn't compare.

I definately enjoy the game of golf.  However, I only very seldom play simulated golf games.  

I hear others tout about how "Realistic" and "Fun" simulated golf is.  I can detect the paralell elements of Real vs Simulated Golf.  I just find too many components that divide what I know to be realistic vs what is simulated.  

This division of experience,  "Really Erks the Hell Out of Me".  I can't do simulated Golf for that reason.

Powered manned flight as existed for less than 100 years.  Recreational, computer simulated flight for about 10 years.  It is just a baby boys and girls.  Give it some time to grow up.

The rate at which technology is increasing is quite astounding.  I might yet find some form of a "Simulated Golf Game" that I can compare to a "Real Golf Game".  But, I bet that will be sooner than what many are asking for in a flight simulation right now.

I find no fault in any individuals efforts to hurry this along.  IMO they just need to realize that for this type of "Simulated Game" to accurately "Simulate Absolute Realism", the technology must advance quite a bit more.

Merry Christmas Eve!

Mino

[jmccaul]

Goombah, shacker :
   You are questioning HTC commitment to producing a high fidelity model because of the lack of feedback from them on your particular disscusion?

   Come on guys you obviously have experience flying planes but this is beta and it has been mentioned on this board by pyro and hitech that the various planes performance are only roughed in at this moment, from this I take it to mean that the physics model is in place (complete htc ?) but the numbers imputted into this model are not yet representing the true performance of the aircraft, pyro said he would be working on getting plane performances accurate for the next few patches. The people at the helm of HTC have a history of striving to produce high fidelity models, I think it is fair to say that they are aiming at creating the best physics model they can. When HTC say that the incorrect figures are due to guage calibration it is consistent with previous comments so probably not a smoke screen. These guys have made excellent flight models before in Warbirds (don't take my opinion in for it here is a link to an excellent site that rviews flight models including warbirds www.pctestpilot.com  ) That is not to say that everything they do is correct but it's probably best to give them the benefit of the doubt in most cases when they tell you something rather than say these guys have no intrest in making a realistic flight model their just trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Out of curiosity what are your opinions on the physics model? Not the numbers for the 51 are off etc but more along the lines of shakers comment
==================================
The nose of the aircraft should NOT pitch down when the flaps are applied. Flaps create increased lift the result of this should be obvious.
==================================
P.S on that point I remember reading the nose pitched down (as in aces high) due to airflow over the wings i.e. They are acting like a secondary elevator in the down position which will pitch the nose down as in aces high. Is this incorrect?  

      I would say though the lack of feedback is probably due to the length of the thread and the replies in it as it takes a hell of a long time to read and be familiar with the arguments. I myself haven't read all the posts perhaps it would be an idea to make a few new threads each addressing what you find wrong with the game.

[Goombah]

jmccaul:
Following the advice of using a new thread to bring attention to recommendations ...

Please see Flap Deployment Vs Angle of Attack

Goombah



[This message has been edited by Goombah (edited 12-24-1999).]

[Shacker]

That is the whole problem I am trying to point out.

I have NO MEASURE of how the physics model is performing until and unless the guages are calibrated.

There is just no way for me to tell what the aircraft is doing since I can't feel it in my butt I must rely on the instruments to tell me what is going on. If they are wrong there is no point.

 

[jmccaul]

Surely shacker instruments aren't everything.

What do you think of the drag, induced and parasitic, on the planes do these effect them in correct ways?

Stalling and Spinning are these modeled correctly?

Just 2 examples of a way do judge an FM. You made a comment about flaps on the B17 do you see any other errors.

Obviously you can't fully judge the FM without instruments but can't you comment on the feel?        

[Shacker]

How can I comment on the feel?

The aircraft should perform a certain way at certain settings. If these are altered the results should be predictable however those results vary between aircraft.

Without accurately modled instruments I have no way of knowing if induced drag is correct or if parasitic drag is in the right amount for a given aircraft configuration.

Without calibrated instruments detailed analysis of things like that would be purely guessing and would be of little help to the developers and probably be a detriment to their efforts.

Forinstance I know the aircraft will not fly much below about 200 mph indicated without the stall warning starting. Is this correct? no it is about 115 to 120 mph too fast for the proper stall speed. What is the cause? I dunno. No way to tell if the instruments are not calibrated It could be RPMs, MAP, Power, Drag, Parasitic Drag. All of the above or none of the above. There is just no way to tell.

 

[jmccaul]

Shacker

Not many flight sims have working MAP and RPM so how do you evaluate these? Thses are the only 2 instruments not yet calibrated yet to my knowledge due to the fact the engine mangement part of the game is not yet written. It is a fair assumption to say that the speed,altitude etc. indicated are correct.

Earlier in this thread you made the comment
=========================================
"To answer your other question the flight models in MSCFS are pretty darn good"
=========================================

Was this judgement based purley on MAP and RPM settings? If so how did you know the correct settings on every plane?

you also said
==========================================
"Without accurately modled instruments I have no way of knowing if induced drag is correct or if parasitic drag is in the right amount for a given aircraft configuration."
==========================================
These 2 factors are purly a function of  AoA (hence lift) and speed respectivley and i think it's fair to say the speed gauge is working so why can't you judge?
 

You also state :
==========================================
"For instance I know the aircraft will not fly much below about 200 mph indicated without the stall warning starting. Is this correct? no it is about 115 to 120 mph too fast for the proper stall speed."
===========================================
  Any aircraft can stall at any speed the same is true in aces high. E.g. FW 190 A4 in a 6g turn will stall at 311 mph in a clean configuration. If you are talking about stall speed at 1G then aces high does pretty good.

   To paraphrase spitfire 9 pilot's handbook
Stall speed at training load (full main tanks no ammuntion) is approx 90 mph. An indication of the stall is given by tail buffeting and the stall itself is gentle with the nose and either wing dropping.  

  In aces high the spit exhibits these cahracteristics although the stall speed is closer to 80-85 than 90 which is probably due to the models not being finalized i.e. the numbers not being put into the physics model not quite right rather than the model being fundamentally flawed also things such as reverse aileron works at stall.

    Exact numbers for particular aircraft are not what we are talking about. The numbers plugged into the flight model for each plane can be altered so that a particular plane stalls at the right speeds etc. These numbers still need to be tweaked. You can still though judge the physics model as some principles of flight apply regardless of which reverse ailerons at stall are a good example of this.

    If I, a complete novice, can judge what is realistic about some small aspects of this sim simply through a rudimentary knowledge of how a plane should act why can't you?

   My post above asking about drag and stall where just 2 examples to give you a kick start into the sort of things you could discuss when evaluated the FM and you did manage to comment on the stall aspect but to be honest that answer slightly tainted my confidence in your ability to judge FM's.

So I ask again what do you think is good about the physics model
e.g. aileron reversal at stall

and what is bad (how do other sims do it better)
e.g. nose down with flaps on b17

You mentioned this as constructive critism and the developer gave you an answer : flaps are not yet moddeled. I'm sure comments in this form would yield a much greater response from HTC. Also if you post them in a new thread they are much more likely to be read.  
         

[Shacker]

I'll print out your post and answer it as best I can at lenght soon.

In essence you said any plane can stall at any speed. Not in level flight it shouldn't unless you got one heck of a gusting tailwind.

The B-17 should lift off at 115 mph or thereabouts at full gross. The B-17 in AH won't even maintain level flight at that speed.

If the airspeed indicator is indeed correct then the FM is toast. I suspect none of the guages are modled at this time.

[jmccaul]

Quote
==========================================
In essence you said any plane can stall at any speed. Not in level flight it shouldn't unless you got one heck of a gusting tailwind.
==========================================
 Of course you can stall in level flight (i.e. 1g) that is what pilot handbooks give. You are unlikly to be at these speeds in level flight though with any signicant thrust (engines working hard) however no plane can remain in flight indefinatly without thrust (i.e. engines off) and will eventually reach a point when the IAS in level flight is not enough and the aircraft will stall.

========================================
The B-17 should lift off at 115 mph or thereabouts at full gross. The B-17 in AH won't even maintain level flight at that speed.
==========================================

   Personally i can hold it level until about 110 IAS (just did a quick test not sure what loadout) but assuming you are right and the B17 does stall at too higher speed at 1g this would not be a function of the physics model but rather the numbers put into the model which could be corrected this doesn't show how good/bad the model is it does though show the B17 isn't performing as it should, none of the planes are, that has been acknowledged by HTC and that is one of their next priorities getting the right numbers in. This not going to improve the base physics model if is fundamentally wrong now it will be after the changes which is why you can judge it now.  
=========================================
If the airspeed indicator is indeed correct then the FM is toast. I suspect none of the guages are modled at this time.
=========================================

   I am 99% sure the indicator is right I see no reason why it would not be. For the sake of your evaluation assume only that engine mangement settings are incorrect i.e. changing MAP and RPM will not have the correct effects due to those components not being properly modelled (and therefore calibrated).

Eagerly awaiting you FM evaluation  
     

[Pyro]

Hang in there Shacker, your day will come.  Flight modeling stuff has been pretty static through the beta but that will be changing a lot in the near future.  I get the feeling that we won't present the level of complexity that you're looking for systems-wise, but I think our flight modeling will come out well.  I will definately let you know when the B-17 has been done.  As it stands now, it'll probably be one of the last planes to get hit.



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

"The side with the fanciest uniforms loses."

[Goombah]

Good for you Pyro!

If Shacker had been given that kind of answer on his first posting I doubt if he would have felt the need to defend what he (and I) knew had to be true.

Certainly I would not have felt the need to jump in as I did, to defend a person who was obviously knowlegeable, yet was being ignored by developers and attacked by players.

I doubt that he will expect the systems to be too detailed...Aces High is not, after all, an emergency procedures trainer nor is it intended to be a complete procedures trainer.

I am confident now that your team will insure that Aces High is more than "just a game" and will be a flight and combat simulator as well.

I look forward to its completion.

Shacker can be of great help to you during your further development phases...Particularly if he has a more direct channel for his feedback to you than this public forum.

There are all too few good flight simulators being developed these days...That, I feel sure is the source of Shacker's motivation to help...I know it was the reason for my concern.

We NEED Aces High!

Goombah



[This message has been edited by Goombah (edited 12-28-1999).]