Flight model - responsiveness

[SMERSH]

I'm impressed with the new WB flight model in the beta. The planes no longer fly like they're on iron rails (Quakebirds anyone?)

The planes now have a greater feeling of inertia and you have to think ahead, cuz you can't just jerk the stick around and expect the plane to respond instantaneously the way you want. This lack of inertia has been a BIG problem with flight models up to this point in AW / WB, so it's good to see it being addressed.

I hope Hitech is paying close attention to this, so that AH flight model has similar or better flight model with inertia.

Can't wait for the open beta. It's before end of this month right?
Thanks  

[-towd_]

ya know i think it is a feeling imparted with tha realistic time resposes of control surfaces.

but you are right it makes the whole thing alot better. hard to believe that much improvement from such a simple thing. (hitech creations team fly new version for a few min i think it will be worth it, as the change sounds easy to implement in a new game.)

and it is the first thing imol did right this year im my opinion.

[Pyro]

Actually, there used to be built in delays in some of the 1.xx versions of WB.  

It's funny that you mention lack of inertia as a problem.  One of the things my modeling used to catch a lot of criticism over was the high roll inertia.  When PC Test Pilot reviewed the flight model of 2.5, they said the pitch and yaw response was excellent but that the roll inertia was too high.  This spring I went and dug up a lot of information on moments of inertia and found that that criticisms had been very valid.  This is something that HT confirmed during his P-51 flight as well.  He found the response to be so quick that it didn't take much input to get your head smacked by the side of the canopy if you weren't set for it.

The end result is that you'll see something more crisp, not sluggish, in the roll than anything I've done before.



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

[bod]

It is not greater inertia that is modelled, but the timelag to account for the real forces needed to move the stick.

Allthough far from being an expert, only a GA pilot, i think the inertia (not the timelag on the stick) really is overdone, especially in roll.

The new stick timelag seems to be an improvement, it really feels more real, but the rudder timelag is maybe a bit overdone IMO (Only tried it 15 minutes or so).

Bod

[Windle]

I think the new  WB feature is great. If you're doing 300 mph look out at your wing tip while moving the stick left & right.  What I see is much more akin to what I see when flying GA aircraft. Instant response works for aerobatic competition aircraft but I doubt so much for 10,000 pound warbirds.

------------------
Lt. Jg. Windle
VF-17 'The Jolly Rogers' 8X
  Skychrgr@aol.com  

[bod]

The aerodynamic forces on an ac moving at 300 mph are much larger than the rolling inertia. These forces also work on the control surfaces, thus an airplane start a roll with a slow rate due to the large muscle forces needed, but when letting go of the stick it should stop rolling at a fast rate.

[Kats]

I have video from the back seat of a P51D mustang during an airshow where the pilot goes through all the "moves". I think one thing that should be taken into account is that things seem alot more dramatic from the inside, especially when your experiencing the G's, than they would appear by just "seeing" the visual. Also remember, the wings weren't loaded down with gun barrels and ammo.

As far as the new WB model, I have no clues about what the "real" numbers should be, but I can say that the "experience" certainly mimics my expectations after reading countless anecdotal stories. I was seeing FW's outmanouver my 109 due to it's superior roll performance, and I thought that was right on  

Perhaps G's vs. pilot fatigue vs. stick forces are the mystery values that make recreating combat conditons and performance so elusive in flight simms.

Conclusion: I dunno  

[Curly]

Can't stand it when people want WWII airplanes to fly like Cessna's and AirBuses

 

--Curly..

[Windle]

? Curly

------------------
Lt. Jg. Windle
VF-17 'The Jolly Rogers' 8X
  Skychrgr@aol.com  

[Curly]

 Yes Windle?

[glars]

 

The new stick timelag seems to be an improvement, it really feels more real, but the rudder timelag is maybe a bit overdone IMO

The 'timelag' effect is a bit misleading I suppose as you're pushing a piece of plastic around as fast as you can yet it wouldn't happen like that in the actual cockpit.

Do the forcefeedback sticks give a truer impression with it being harder to move the stick and so keep more in-sync with the actual plane's behavior?

------------------
Glars
RNZAF
 http://glarsmaps.warbirds.org  

[brendo]

Hi Pyro,

Im a friend of the PC Test pilot guy and we have talked a fair bit about the roll of Warbirds (game) aircraft.

Out of all the combat sims on the market, European Air War is one of the most realistic for roll.

In MY opinion, Warbirds 2.73 gets the roll entry correct, if a little slow, to get to full deflection, but the EXIT of the roll is still terrible (I cant wait to hear what PC TEST pilot says about it <g> ) .

An aircraft doesnt roll much after you centralise the controls. It certainly doesnt wallow around half a roll.

PC TEST pilot did a demo at RETNUHs place showing real life compared to our simulations.

Have you ever tried doing 8 point rolls in Warbirds? It is a waste of time, WAY to sloppy after centralising controls.

I am excited to hear that you are making the rolls 'crisp' .

My thoughts are it takes force to deflect an aileron, but would take a lot less force to centralise the controls.

These are exciting times for simmers....

[grak]

There has been alot of talk about roll force etc. so I though I would add my two cents worth.  stick force does increase with airspeed in almost all mechanical type control surfaces, but control effectiveness also increases do to increased airflow across the control surfaces.  At higher airspeed it takes less control defection to produce the same roll rate in most aircraft.  The exception comes when there is to much positive stablity, or poor aerodynamic flow at high speeds.  

Increased control forces at high speed also mean that there is less control force needed to neutralize the controls (something Warbirds 2.73 seems to have left out.) Flight control stick length also determines control forces. A longer control stick means a more efficient lever, and great force can be applied with less effort.

Grak

[funked]

"When PC Test Pilot reviewed the flight model of 2.5, they said the pitch and yaw response was excellent but that the roll inertia was
                                too high."

Pyro I was thinking the same exact thing and laughing my bellybutton off.

I've seen Robert A. "Bob" Hoover do 16 point rolls in a P-51D and there is no way you can do that with the WB 2.73 abortion of a flight model!

[Kats]

 

I've seen Robert A. "Bob" Hoover do 16 point rolls in a P-51D and there is no way you can do that with the WB
                         2.73 abortion of a flight model!

Just tried to do 8 pt rolls in WB P51d - toejam your right, mashed potatoes