Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: CRASH on December 28, 2000, 03:09:00 PM
-
I love AH and I certainly apreciate all the work that went into this new release, but can we please have the more realistic flight model again. I always thought this game was built on having the most accurate flight model out there. I think it's beginning to move away from that with the dumbed down torque effect and who knows what else for the sake of game play and accomodating the new guys. For me, flight model is everything.
CRASH
-
CRASH
I am ready to explode.
The 1.03 model you are referring to was way off in drags.
It wasn't coming close to hitting the numbers in drag. Pyro and I spent huge volume of hours doing specifically what YOU want. Making the model's as accurate as we possibly can.
We do not change performance numbers just for play reasons. We do NOT simply dumb down planes. We do our very best, with ALL the tools we have available to make every aspect of the models come as close to the real thing as we can.
This idea people have that they think the model is porked with nothing but there perception as a basis,is just full of BS, and really starting to piss me off.
You don't want realism in a flight model you want it to be Hard just for the sake of being hard.
Now as to if the torque is off or not on the F4 , CRASH you really don't know if it is.
How much research have you done to figure out the exact forces and rates on and F4?
There are pieces of what you call torque I know are very close to real performance BTW did you know real eng torque more than doubled on most planes in 1.04? The yaw effect you are referring to is mostly do to slip stream effects. They might not be spot on but they are very close. I've already spent lots of hours researching ways to better simulate this effect. It will most probably change in the future but to gain more accuracy in that area is not a simple thing and there are lots of bigger fish in the pan at this moment.
In not saying our model is always 100% accurate. But I can assure you when it comes to the flight dynamics of the planes we strive to get them as accurate as we can and make it happen in the time allotted.
So please stop call us liars because i'm really getting sick of it.
What it basicly comes down to is there definatly are spefic problems with some planes, but you loose all creditiblity when you don't start from fact's, make sweeping statements like the MORE Acurate model of 1.03, That we dumb down flight models excetera.
HiTech
______________
ran't mode off.
-
Like realism? Here's a plan...
Kissimee you probably know about. Chino, Calif. has a ACM/BFM combat program for $5-8000. The program includes dual time in a jet fighter, BUT they also allow trade-offs for time in a P-40, P-47, F-4U and I think a Mustang (might be an F6F; lost the brochure actually).
There are TONS of fantasy vacations out there like this. BUT, there are literally thousands of restoration projects around the world and very few technicians able to work on them all! So, find a local Aviation Academy and get your A&P Technicians certificate. This will allow you to work at any airport ANYWHERE! Then, you can work for a fair wage! After a few years you can just about name your own salary toward restoration work (for independents), or just throw caution to the wind and volunteer your time for a museum.
You should be aware, though, that museums' seldom let tech's fly their restorations.
A&P Tech training goes for about $16k, takes about 15-18 months, and there are grants and loans available. BTW, the curriculum in this type of training is FAR more intensive then any pilot training out there. You will LITERALLY know more about every aspect of aircraft then any pilot ever thought of knowing.
Think you're upset about flight models now? Just wait... heh
Here's a few links:
http://www2.okstate.edu/aviation/ttcprog1.html (http://www2.okstate.edu/aviation/ttcprog1.html)
http://imagine.slu.edu/parks/airframe_technician.html (http://imagine.slu.edu/parks/airframe_technician.html)
http://www.tcjc.cc.tx.us/campus_nw/aero/aerohtml/aerofaq.htm (http://www.tcjc.cc.tx.us/campus_nw/aero/aerohtml/aerofaq.htm)
Voss
-
Well, I tried to get that in before HT replied! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
My point is, if you are really upset about something these guys have worked so hard on, you need a vacation! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Voss
-
HiTech,
you wanna trade handles with me? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
keep up the fantastic work, I am having a ball.
Furious
-
I have to agree that the drag modelling is now more accurate, by far, than in 1.03
I resist, tho, to think that the torque model is right. Sorry but I cant believe it. we all have a 27-loop after take off film from a niki with relative unnapreciable effects whatsoever on the top of the loop atthe lowest speed imaginable.
a 2000 hp engine with a big propeller as the N1K2, the F4U1 or the Typhoon, can't make so few effect. I think the 1.03 WAS more accurate on the torque modelling.
-
Crash.. It's a game!!!! Hello!!
There is NOTHING, .. NOTHING out there that comes close to what htc has given us.. I just don't get why you can sit here and nitpick about flight models on a computer game.... I'm willing to trust that hitech and Pyro have done their research. That's what they get paid to do.. I'm not for "brown nosing" lol..... but man.. this is by far the best world war 2 ANYTHING out there. At least for me it is.. I love it!!!
Keep up the great work hitech and Pyro (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
In this world you'll never please everyone.
-
Here is a suggested policy:
Anyone who wants to comment on the flight model must first be able to explain the differences between Torque, P-factor, Slipstream, and Gyroscopic Precession. They must describe the physics behind each force, how it is applied to the airplane, and how the pilot feels it and counteracts it at slow airspeeds.
If a pilot cannot describe those forces, he is not yet educated enough in aerodynamics to comment on the realism of the flight model. Those who are unqualified are free to post comments, and HiTech is free to ignore them.
-
Originally posted by 54Ed:
differences between Torque, P-factor, Slipstream, and Gyroscopic Precession.
Torque: A canadian F4U-1C pilot that is damn good and flies AH.
P-factor: How much you can push someone before you piss them off.
Slipstream: Happens when you are out trout fishing and you step on a slippery rock.
Gyroscopic Precession: Something you see on acid.
Good enuff, now can I complain about something? :-)
-SW
-
Is Aces High the game for you?
If you don't like the FM of Aces High then obviously its not the sim for you. I suggest you continue your search until you find what your perception of the correct FM is...
I'll stay here cuz I like it +)
AKskurj
-
>I resist, tho, to think that the torque
>model is right. Sorry but I cant believe
>it.
RAM,
Could be. There is always the possibility that they had errors in their source data or that their mathematical equations.
Please share with us your data and calculations that prove their model is inaccurate. HT and Pyro would be the first to thank you for any USEFUL data you could provide.
Not your "gut feelings".
Not your "intuition".
Not undocumented common knowledge.
Not WWII Urban Legends.
Not telepathically channeling Kurt Tank's spirit.
Your vague "well that's not the way I always imagined it would feel..." anecdotes are irrelevant.
Regards,
Wab
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit:
Not undocumented common knowledge.
.
.
.
.
Your vague "well that's not the way I always imagined it would feel..." anecdotes are irrelevant.
Brit Typhoons smashing against fields' right side hangars because they couldnt overcome the yawing to the right even with full rudder deflection. Both well documented and well known.
AH's N1K2 doing 27 low speed loops in a row without playing the helicopter on the top (2000 hp engine with an airframe a bit heavier than that of a spit XIV).
I just took off from a CV in a typhoon, offline, filmed it. Want me to post the film?
Because the 27 loops film is posted elsewhere.
Anyway I am ready to receive the flames...I have made my point and argumented it. I'm out of this thread.
Have a nice day.
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit:
Not telepathically channeling Kurt Tank's spirit.
Regards,
Wab
Jeez, Wab! What if I'd just had an appendectomy and read this?? I'd have popped all the stitches! Be careful! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Things I'm not holding my breath waiting for:
Ram's complete, absolutely perfect flight model programming for even ONE WW2 aircraft.
Fishu's complete, absolutely perfect ballistic trajectory and damage model program for even ONE WW2 airborn weapon.
Guess I'll just go with what HTC tells me is their best effort. At least it's coded and works. At least I know they try to make it better everyday. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Anyone still wondering if the continuous, rancourous b*tching is getting a little old for the Grapevine Gang?
Man, if I was them, I'd cheerfully accept polite critiques.
But I'd zap the "non-stop two-year-old infantile no-data attitude" guys from the board and the game in a nano-second.
It's not worth $30 to listen to that stuff.
There was one guy b*tching at HT last nite while he was playing the game!
HT, you need a zapper! A PERMANENT zapper. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Ahem, just dropped by again, to say this.
Toad, you are a lot of things from my point of view, and very few of them quite good. I dont use to say things like this on public, but as you have a "demagogic" Email instead of the true one, I have to tell this on public. I would've done it on private If I could.
One of the things I most dislike from you is that you are the Master of Demagogy.
And one of the other things I dislike from you is that most times your posts remember me a Vulture's attitude. You only drop by when you know you can get some "easy" dead meat. But be ware, I'm not dead.
And now yes, I'm out of this thread (sorry, had to answer him and this is the only channel I can use (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)).
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-28-2000).]
-
QUOTE: RAM
"Toad, you are a lot of things from my point of view, and very few of them quite good."
What a coincidence! I think almost EXACTLY the same thing about you! In fact, I'd only change two words into just one if I was going to say that about you. Can you guess which two? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
When's that Flight Model coming out Ram? The world is waiting.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-28-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-28-2000).]
-
Originally posted by RAM:
And now yes, I'm out of this thread (sorry, had to answer him)
B]
Story of yer life eh RAM? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Ram you are kinda strange (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
HT never mind mate..<swish> right over their heads (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
what a strange thread this was
hazed
-
Hmmmm... is it my understanding Toad and RAM don't get along?
You'd think they'd get along like a house on fire! What with Toad being an opinionated real-life ex-combat pilot, and RAM just being opinionated, you'd think they'd be best buds.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Doowding,
I have nothing against Ram personally, actually.
I do have a general dislike for the critics in the "cheap seats".
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
THEODORE ROOSEVELT
HT and all of HTC is "in the arena". The impatient critics aren't.
...and lets get the record straight. I was never in combat. I've spent over 2 years of my life in heavier than air machines that weren't resting on the ground. Lord knows how many hours in six-axis motion flight simulators.
I think HTC does a pretty amazing job.
-
I got your back Toad.
HT, how come you refused to answer my perfectly valid question last night online:
If I fart, does it stink?
Made at least as much sense as 7/8 of what the huddled mass were asking of you.
-
No offence Toad, I wasn't trying to start a fight or anything. Just commenting that since you've done a lot of flying in the military (relative to most players), the fact that you're satisfied with the game speaks volumes.
Like yourself, I don't think people should criticise the FM's without having the flight time in the aircraft concerned or the aeronautical engineering data to back up their claims.
Physics is a lot more than a bunch of qualitative statements like 'it feels wrong'.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 12-28-2000).]
-
We do not change performance numbers just for play reasons. We do NOT simply dumb down planes. We do our very best, with ALL the tools we have available to make every aspect of the models come as close to the real thing as we can.
Nice to know, and certainly good enough for me to keep my big trap shut from now on. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Well ..............
-
HT, Please don't splode. My bad....I was indeed confusing torque/p-factor with slipstream. I was reading some of the other posts and from some of my own strictly antectodal experience I thought that things may have been dialed back a notch. The post, poorly worded as it was, was mearly a question, not an accusation. The difference between slipstream and torque had actually occurred to me, but having never flown an f4, I wouldn't know. My apologies. BTW, the departure from controlled flight characteristics of the f6 are really impressive. I dont know how accurate they are, but they are definately smooth and exceptionally life like in my estimation...for what it's worth.
I'm a bit concerned about the "what YOU wanted" statement. Did you make changes to the AH flight model based solely on something that I posted? Please don't do that. If I make a suggestion that you think helps you then I'm happy for having helped you make this a more successfull game, but I don't do this for a living so please don't give my suggestions any more weight than anyone elses. I don't post references to aircraft specs and various other documented flight data in my posts specifically because I dont study this stuff like some do and the last thing I'm trying to do is pass myself off as an expert in anything related to flight sims. (You wanna talk stock market, then I'm there (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif))
I, like everyone else of course, certainly notices when changes are made that coincide with things that we've suggested and your willingness to accept suggestions from the community by all accounts is greatly apreciated.
Liars? About flight model? Was there a post somewhere that I've missed here? My post was definately not a backhanded way of calling you a liar. A poorly worded request for more info, definately. I expected a response, (if any), to be more along the lines of "well, we needed to turn it down some for awhile to give people time to catch up" or "what?, are you nutts, that's less slipstream effect you idiot, and it's as whoopee accurate as we can make it".
Please don't think for one minute that I dont think this to be an extraodinary piece of work. I didn't mean to suggest that you go back to 1.03, clearly the current edition is the more accurate, slipstream effect or not.
I threw the post together at work, while doing 2 other things at the same time and I agree that in retrospect it set the wrong tone. The term "dumbed down" sounds a bit inflamatory, and upon closer review is probably what primarily set you off? Bad choice of words, ..I apologize. But Liar? I've been in the military, either part time or full time for goin' on 18 years now and I take honor seriously...very seriously. If I'd have meant to call you a liar I would have been very direct and forthright about it. There would have been no doubt about what I was saying. I wasn't.
The next time I consider posting something that you may have serious disagreement with I will insure that it's worded in a less inflamatory manner.
CRASH.....OUT
-
And yet, NO ONE was inspired by anything in my post. (sigh)
Voss 13th T.A.S.
-
Thanx Voss, but if I wanted to do that I wouldn't be flyin my 'puter...for now anyway (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
RedBrn, I know it's a game, thank you very much and I would very much like to see it be successfull and remain that way.
54ed...I can both describe/define the effects and counter them in flight/taxi. Someday I'll finish getting my liscence (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Skurj...the fm here is the best I've ever seen, though I dont play boxed versions of flight simms...it's the mm thing that I really like.
CRASH
-
Apologie accepted crash, Any way the liar comment commes from your more accurate flight model of 1.03 statement, and the dumb down comment. Basicly I read it as you saw us as saying "we wish a more accurate flight model" but accuse us of dumbing it down, hence the liar comment.
The YOU wanted referes to your (and mine btw) desire for more accurate flight models not any 1 paticlure thing you said in the past.
No broblems mate. All is well in mudsvile.
The response to your post wasn't just aimed at you.
HiTech
-
I can say that your fart does stink Lizking, and further more can be and is more potent after chili. The kind that was in short supply to the Waffles late in the war.
I can also say that the dispersion model of the vapors is drastically affected by the following (this I quote directly from Kurt Tanks design specs, thought to be lost and only a myth, until recently unearthed at the renovations of the Tank Cabbage and Snetzel Works, where he did some of his most pioneering work):
Force of movement of gas cloud from said fart
The speed of movement of your body away from the offending odor
The prevailing wind patterns that are present in release of the same offending cloud
Ambient air temperature and relative humidity which drastically alters not only the intensity of the odor, but the ability of the cloud to hold together and not dissipate.
Field elevation....at higher elevations and on hotter days, the lift efficiency will be drastically reduced.
As an historical side note, it was from this very research that Kurt Tank got his inspiration for the Dora, which as we all know is the direct forebearer of the Starship Enterprise......Live Long and Prosper..Nanu, Nanu.
Thank You and Goodnight
Cobra
-
Dowding,
Absolutely no offence taken. I feel I know you better than that, you pudding-headed commie-pinko socialist dweeb! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (At least you know how to debate. Sort of. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
As I said, I didn't fly fighters and I didn't fly any combat. I DO have a lot of time in planes ranging from the Piper Cub to the B-747, including some WW2 stuff.
That doesn't really make me qualified to comment on the accuracy of AH. The programmers know far more about that than I would.
My point is this:
This is simply an AMAZING program considering what they are trying to model, the reliable information available and the fact that it runs on what is basically a cheap desktop computer.
I believe if you ask the RL pilots flying this and who have experience in high dollar simulators and actual aircraft you'll find that most are quite impressed with what has been accomplished so fast, so well and so relatively cheaply by HTC.
Perfect? No. What is?
Amazingly good? Absolutely. Comes complete with dedicated team trying to improve it everyday.
What more can we ask for? Why are we so ungrateful? Why do we fail to show HT and the rest the respect they are cleary owed?
I wish I could convey that idea to the unhappy ones. Apparently, I fail to do that.
Anyway, Cheers!
I'm enjoying the heck out of this latest improvement and look forward to seeing you in the MA.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 12-29-2000).]
-
I still say my X-Wing has too much drag dammit! *g*
-
Okie Dokie smokie.
CRASH
-
>Brit Typhoons smashing against fields'
>right side hangars because they couldnt
>overcome the yawing to the right even with
>full rudder deflection. Both well
>documented and well known.
Anecdotes are irrelevant.
HTC enjoys the presumption of correctness until you are able to PROVE otherwise. Proof requires numerical evidence.
Go look up some of Wells' old post to see what a well reasoned, informed discussion looks like.
If you can show a discrepency between published numerical performance data and the performance in game then post your data for the community to review and duplicate your tests. If you can PROVE a discrepency with NUMBERS I have no doubt HTC will be all over it like white on rice.
Until you got numbers its just your personal opinion, and like amazinhunks, "everybody got one..." and most stink.
Regards,
Wab
-
"HTC enjoys the presumption of correctness until you are able to PROVE otherwise. Proof requires numerical evidence. "
That's all very well, but the numbers dont always output the correct result (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)...and I do think it's the case with torque.
The Beagle Pup I fly need more rudder input on take-off than most of the AH planes..and that's a 150hp tricycle plane (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"
-
I read the posts from CRASH and HiTech only in this post.
After reading HTs posts I am feeling sure that they are still trying to get the most accurate FM existing in their games/sim.
I have been worried sometimes, afraid that HTC should dumbdown the FM, now I am feeling assure that that wont happen.
After all, I want a sim of WWII planes,NOT a game of WWII planes, THAT'S why I still flies Aces High (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
PS. Sorry if my english is not to good, but after all I am from Norway, and I am also getting a bit drunk right now, preparing myself for a night on the town(Its Friday night).
------------------
(http://home.sol.no/~laerga/lassel.gif)
The Wild Vikings
Commanding Officer
lasse-
[This message has been edited by lasse (edited 12-29-2000).]
-
I just picked up AH again with the new release.
Frankly I don't think there's all that much wrong with the flight models. The general model 'feels' pretty good. Airplanes like the spit seem to glide a bit better than I'd expect. I found landing the spit 9 was like landing a glider without using spoilers. It wanted to float for a LONG time. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But, overall, I'm pretty impressed.
There may be some specific areas on individual planes that aren't perfect, but these things take time to get sorted out.
I'd like to see some performance specs on the help page for the Spit 9.
It seems to shed wings a bit easily and the ailerons lock up more quickly than I think they should in a later model spit.
But, overall, it seems like a very GOOD work in progress.
That's what some folks may be forgetting. I saw one post here in which the writer expressed dismay at 'paying to beta test'. I've heard this complaint in all the online sims I've ever played!
AH is never going to be finished. And that's a GOOD thing, as Martha would say. We need to remember that players aren't paying to beta test, they're paying to get a continually refined and reinvented product.
Works for me.
finn
-
Daff,
>The Beagle Pup I fly need more rudder input
>on take-off than most of the AH planes..and
>that's a 150hp tricycle plane
Fair enough. But lets talk about that for a moment.
Lets say for argument that 50% left rudder in your pup results in 6 deg rudder deflection (totally made up numbers here).
Are you positive that 50% left rudder on your PC peddles result in 6 deg deflection as well?
Could it be due to input scale that 50% left rudder on your PC results in 10 deg deflection? Or 3 deg? Would that make it seem as if less rudder is needed in AH than in real life? Or more?
Could you scale your rudder peddles in such a way as to get that back in sync with your real life experience?
Could having your rudder peddles scaled in such a way give the impression that the FM is not accurate? Could it make it seem too easy to control a tiffy on take-off because 10% rudder on your home peddles generate the same rudder deflection as 100% on the peddles in the real plane?
HTC has no idea how your going to scale your rudder peddles. They don’t know what your input curve is going to be. You may be scaling with CTFJ completely outside their program.
Their model for the effects of 6 deg rudder deflection on the velocity vector might be spot on in regards to real life, but the scale of your input device might make it easier or harder to achieve that deflection than in real life. That could cause someone who has not given it sufficient thought to proclaim the FM as porked.
I’m not saying any of this is really the cause of your problem. I’m just saying that all kinds of complexities like this have to be considered and eliminated before anyone can confidently brand the FM as incorrectly modeled.
Regards,
Wab
-
Good points, Wab, but it's based on how much the planes veer off without any rudder input.
(Although I've never *not* used rudder in the Pup..I wouldnt be very popular if I did that (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)).
It's also based on the amount of rudder you need, when changing throttle settings, climbing and descending.
While the Pup isnt as directionally stable as a Cessna, Piper, etc, it's still a very easy plane to fly and relativly little footwork is required...but rudder in both AH and WB seems to be there for aiming and not much else.
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"
-
Daff,
I see your point. However we are really talking apples and oranges between your pup and an F-4U or Tiffy. Hell we’d even be talking apples and oranges between an F-4U and a Tiffy. Or even between F-4Us of different fuel loads, prop configurations, etc…. They might have the same characteristics…maybe not.
Is the ratio of the mass of the aircraft in proportion to the thrust and torque the same between your pup and a Tiffy? Is it more? Is it less?
Does tricycle gear configurations generally require more rudder input or less than a tail dragger?
Does the wingspan and/or distance between the main wheelbase make a difference?
Does either plane have a more or less efficient prop design generating more or less airflow for slipstream effect?
Is the rudder surface area on both planes the same catching the same amount of the slipstream?
Are the masses of the propellers the same affecting the magnitude of the gyroscopic effect?
The CG of a tricycle aircraft would seem to me to be much more directly over the wheels than a tail dragger. A tail dragger seems to have its CG farther behind the main wheels. Would that have an effect on how easily it is affected by torque in yaw?
There are SOOOO many little details that can affect things like this that it drives me crazy when some of the yahoos around here make blanket FM proclamations based on the flimsiest wisp of evidence and the sloppiest efforts of reason.
I don’t include you in this. You simply noted your different experience in an admittedly different aircraft type. You didn’t try and use that as justification for summarily passing judgment on an FM created by guys who have been researching these issues for longer than some of the pilots around here have even been flying MM online sims. Even worse those around here that aren’t even pilots themselves, who are willing to dismiss the FM based on something they read in some dime novel or Nazi propaganda or have heard on the grapevine.
I don’t know if HTC’s FM is accurate or not. It could be right on the money. It could be hopelessly hosed. All I ask is that “some” people around here are a little more intellectually rigorous in their analysis before summarily dismissing the FM’s as hosed. At least I know enough to know I don’t know enough.
Regards,
Wab
-
Wabbit and Daff:
Taildragger airplanes generally have far larger rudders and vertical stabilizers than modern tricycle gear aircraft. They therefore have much more rudder authority, and a small rudder input produces a larger response.
You really can't compare rudder usage on the two types of aircraft. The physics are just too different when they are on their wheels. On takeoff roll in a tricycle gear plane, you are not really even using the rudder, you are using the nosegear to point the plane where you want it to go, until you rotate. Takeoffs in tricycle gear birds usually require a fixed amount of rudder.
In a taildragger, you raise the tail as you roll, and use the rudder as your sole means of directional control. But the CG of the plane constantly wants to swing to the side, so any little excursion of yaw requires a correction. Watch any experienced taildragger pilot on takeoff or landing; they all "dance" on the rudder, with rapid, small left-right inputs to keep the plane straight.
You also cannot make the logical assumption that more HP equals more yaw at a particular point in the flight envelope. There are just too many design characteristics that we have no data on, like engine and rudder offset, etc. The plane that I have flown that had the most adverse yaw and required the most frequent rudder input was a 65 HP Aeronca Champ. On the other hand, the 200 HP Decathalon that I fly acro in requires little rudder input and is a very easy taildragger to keep directional control of.
-
Yeah, I got time in a Pitts and Tiger Moth (But both those planes are inherently directionally unstable, so I'm not going to use them for comparison)...but what I'm saying is that an utterly docile plane like the Pup needs less rudder than a true warbird doesnt make sense.
If that was the case, then the CAA would probably require rudder trim for the Pup and the insurance would be about 100 times higher.
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"
[This message has been edited by Daff (edited 12-29-2000).]
-
ALL taildraggers are inherently directionally unstable when on the mains. The Pitts just bites you quicker because it's so short-coupled. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I don't disagree with your basic point that the Pup should be much easier to fly than the Corsair. I do disagree that this constitutes irrefutable evidence that the AH flight model physics are stuffed. For my money, AH has by far the most realistic flight model on the market today. This is the ONLY sim I have found to get spin and spin recovery characteristics even remotely close, for example.
-
*sigh*
-
"I do disagree that this constitutes irrefutable evidence that the AH flight model physics are stuffed."
I'm not saying it's irrefutable evidence (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)..but add the anecdotal evidence off rudder need on take-offs and go-arounds, it does look like the critiscism about lacking torque is right.
"For my money, AH has by far the most realistic flight model on the market today. This is the ONLY sim I have found to get spin and spin recovery characteristics even remotely close, for example."
There I disagree..that title still goes to the original Flight Unlimited <G>.
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"
-
Ok, on the issue of torque, let's get past anecdotes and into controlled testing. But first lets define torque: it is the "equal and opposite reaction" which applies a rolling force on the aircraft opposite the rotation of the prop. Torque does not cause yaw. The interaction of torque with other forces, and with pilot control inputs, may have the effect of causing the plane to yaw, but torque does not directly cause yaw. It causes roll. It should not be confused with slipstream, P-factor, Gyroscopic Precession, or Assymetric Drag, the other major forces acting on a high-performance aircraft at slow airspeeds.
So get in offline mode, grab a corsair on the runway with power at idle, and turn off the autopilot. Now apply full power and leave your hands off the controls. What happens?
I'll tell you what happened to me every single time. The plane veered off the runway to the left, until it reached a heading about 45 degrees off the runway centerline. At that point, it either smacked into a hangar, or the airspeed reached 120 and the plane gradually stopped yawing and flew straight.
Was it torque that caused the plane to veer? Nope. It was slipstream mostly. That also explains why it straightened out at 120 mph: the airflow over the rudder became strong enough to hold the aircraft straight. The torque may have indirectly contributed to the veer, but not directly.
Now take off in the corsair, get up to a few thousand feet, cut power, and slow it to stall speed. When you hear the stall horn sounding, but just before the nose or a wing drops, apply sudden full power. What happens?
I'll tell you what happened to me: the plane rolled hard left, every time. If I fought the roll with controls, the plane usually executed a half-roll and wound up inverted. If not, it executed a full roll. Once airspeed increased, the roll stopped.
You just saw proof of torque modeled in AH. It was also a standard training maneuver for new pilots in the P-51 and Corsair on their first flight (only they did it at a higher altitude). It was done to teach them respect for high torque, so they wouldn't apply sudden full power at slow airspeeds and low altitude, like on a go-around or low pass. An accidental half-roll at flare height would ruin your day.
So I don't see what the problem is with torque modeling. From what I can tell, it's there, and it's done well.
Excuse me if I sound condescending or explain stuff you already know well. I assume you know about 90% of what I just said. But there are lots of posters out there who don't understand aerodynamic forces, so my explanation is more for them.
-
I'll tell you what happened to me every single time.
Good point Ed. It would have been a MUCH better point if you had tried the above with rudder trim centred though.
Then you'll find she tracks straight as a die and lifts off with no human input at all (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Good point Jekyll. But it would have been a MUCH better point if you had taken off "auto-takeoff".
I did. Here is the film.
http://www.digitalsim.com/AcesHigh/film5.zip (http://www.digitalsim.com/AcesHigh/film5.zip)
(best viewed external, zoomed out from above.)
Look mom, no hands (eating a burger). Til I crashed into the hangar!
Torque might be off. But if it is, its by a matter of degrees not magnitude.
Regards,
Wab
-
Jekyll:
I tried it again, with rudder trim centered. No difference, still veered off 45 degrees and hit a hangar.
Not sure what plane you and Daff are flying, but I strongly suspect you are using auto-takeoff and aren't aware of it. Otherwise your corsair WILL veer off the runway.
-
I posted an excerpt from an F6F pilot manual under 'Flight Model?' at Aircraft and Vehicles section. Check it out.
-
When you turn auto trim off, you 'do' set trims for takeoff, right? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Voss 13th T.A.S.
-
Not in the demo, Voss. The point of the posts above is to prove that torque is accurately modeled in AH ... NOT to demonstrate the correct method of takeoff.
-
BBGunn, what is the URL for your post?
-
Originally posted by Daff:
The Beagle Pup I fly need more rudder input on take-off than most of the AH planes..and that's a 150hp tricycle plane (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Daff
Ya, and probably a few tons less in weight. Flying a beagle pup certainly makes no one an expert on WW2 A/C Flight models..Jeezz!
-
HT is right. I've flown a lot of different flight sims dating back to Chuck Yeagers Test Flight on a Commador 64 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) All of them had very similar performance characteristics for the planes. The one major exception was the P47 on AW. For some reason every other flight sim had the P-47 a a very capable plane and AW made it a total pig. So just going on comparison I'd say they got it very close. Like many of you I've read a lot about these planes. I've know a few men that flew them, I've ridden in a B-17, and I've even flown a couple planes (2 and 4 passenger single engine). I don't have my pilots license. From what I can tell they got it very close.
[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 01-02-2001).]