Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: LEDPIG on April 17, 2006, 03:32:38 AM
-
Hey guys, been playing this for a couple weeks now and i'm really wondering bout these flight dynamics. I been a real pilot since i was sixteen and i have never seen a plane stall so much as the ones in this game. Iv'e seen cessna 152's out perform some of these planes. Never flown a warbird so i'm wondering if anyone who has out there would chime in. I come from flying many other simulators and one sim i use as a benchmark would have to be the Wings of Power planes from Shockwave. The planes modeled by this company have been flown and tested by actual warbird pilots both past and present and given the mark of excellence by these avaitors. When i fly a P-38 over a loop started at 300mph and gotta watch it goin over the top i wonder whats wrong? These planes seem a little lacking on the power side and a little too much on the drag side, weight seems to be modeled very well. The Wings of power planes blast through a lot of situation with thrust and seem a little more accurate on climb performance etc. The P-38 my favorite, seems to be a bit ridiculous and makes me wonder if they shouldn't have taken a citabria into battle instead, most times on every plane in the game you can barely get any turn before your ridin the stall horn and thats with light loadouts. I mean if ww2 planes flew like this you've gotta be kiddin me. I wish AH would check out there flight models some more and introduce a patch. Fly some of the more accurate models in FS 2004 and see what i mean, a world of difference. I mean the general aviation planes in there, the ones iv'e flown in real life are pretty excellent, so i imagine the payware warbirds would be pretty close, but what do i know what do yall think?:D
-
there is a well known term to sum up these problems that are quite clear. we call it y.o.u. for short.
;)
-
Come fly here for a couple of months.
Put your preconcieved notions aside.
Walk into AH leaving your ego at the door (because you'll die a thousand deaths.) and with an open mind.
Then after a few months tell us how the flight model is wrong.
Ohhh and back it up not with subjective "feel" or pilots memory's.
But real world flight test data.
You'll find we are eager to hear what you say if you can prove it.
-
Nice troll. 4/5.
-
Iv'e never flown a warbird, never will, general aviation planes are a joke compared to a real warbird, so all in all i know nothing. I wonder if AH has gotten some actual warbird pilots out there to give them some advice, probably so most do nowadays. The only thing iv'e ever touched is a stearmen and that sure ain't no spitfire so i have no clue. I do think the've gotten it pretty close and its amazing they do what they do, but i do think the flight models need some invaluable tweeking to give them that extra feel, the planes seem to fly a bit stiff and not as fluid as in real life. All in all its a game and its fun as hell,and thats what its good for,but i do detect a bit too much ego around here, if this was actually ww2 i bet most of us would be dead in a few days, me probably a few minutes,you guys are way too talented for me, but all in all i give the whole thing two thumbs waaay up!:aok :
-
Johnny Johnson (big RAF ace) wrote that even the best piston fighter risked stalling if it wasn't descending after it making two turns...of course P-38s were known to do aerobatic single engine takeoffs.
whats the biggest engine you've flown?
big transition to even a Bonanza from a 152.
WASSSSUP!!! (http://www.patricksaviation.com/aviation_videos/349/Fighter_Fling_-_Wassup)
-
Wow that Johnny Johnson quote is really amazing. I wisk we could get his advice. Yea the Bonanza leap is a big one,never flown one, but thats a nice plane its almost pretty aerobatic itself. I'm just an aviation nut proud to be in good company!:D
-
Im an aviation enthusiast, not a pilot or engineer.
But I've noticed in flight model discussions here that the bottom line seems to be actual aviation physics, used to calculate the look up tables the sim itself uses. (I dont think AH's model does its math on the fly....it IS a table look up isnt it?)
So things like power, weight, drag, and all that engineering coefficient stuff is CENTRAL to the models. Individual pilots -- even those who flew the actual birds in combat -- cannot be objective when they evaluate the plane that kept bringing them home, or the one that killed them. Even great stories, like Johnson's posted recently elsewhere, arent true tests because there are too many variables like pilot skill, fatigue, etc.
I have read that some WW2 vets have played, and said things feel right.
HTC has made it repeatedly clear that they will not compromise on flight model accuracy, that they will represent performance as accurately as possible with data and processors available. I really believe they want to do it as close to right as humanly possible, even if that makes it extra hard on newer guys. Some other companies have very clearly made a different decision, to get people flying more comfortably more easily. Llike you, I cant know whose interpretation is more "accurate" but I'd bet on AH. Even if I'm wrong and this model is too "hard", the challenge makes it more fun....
-
First off, I'd check your preferences under setup and see if you've enabled stall limiter. It's a function that cuts don the plane's performance to reduce spins.
-
Just because something is on paper, and someone has that paper, does not mean that someone implemented what is on paper correctly. Forexample, I am sure we could find papers about Tiger performance. I am willing to bet that fliping over after hiting a christmas tree will not be found in any of them.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Just because something is on paper, and someone has that paper, does not mean that someone implemented what is on paper correctly. Forexample, I am sure we could find papers about Tiger performance. I am willing to bet that fliping over after hiting a christmas tree will not be found in any of them.
:lol :lol :lol
-
i don't know who, but it has been talked about at CON's and elsewhere, but supposedly there is a few real WWI vets' includign a p38 pilot who fly AH, and supposedly they say it is as real as it gets.
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
i don't know who, but it has been talked about at CON's and elsewhere, but supposedly there is a few real WWI vets' includign a p38 pilot who fly AH, and supposedly they say it is as real as it gets.
I think you are thinking of the Red Baron, muahahahahahahah WWI
-
Hitech's got some time in a P-51....pretty sure about that one :D
-
Originally posted by LEDPIG
When i fly a P-38 over a loop started at 300mph and gotta watch it goin over the top i wonder whats wrong?
What's wrong? 17,300 pounds is what is wrong. It's a heavy fighter.
However, you can loop a P-38 beginning at 150 mph, just gotta know how to do it.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by LEDPIG
Iv'e seen cessna 152's out perform some of these planes.
Whens the last time you pulled 6-8 Gs in your cessna...at 300 mph...:eek:
-
I have looped em in air combat nice move it works, talk about stall buufffeet though, totally throws your opponent for a loop if they don't have much energy either, ther're like this guys crazy and just fall out then you shoot them on they way down and go you shoulda went over with me lol!!
-
Whens the last time you pulled 6-8 Gs in your cessna...at 300 mph...:eek: [/B][/QUOTE]
HA, HA NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!:O :confused: :(
-
When was the last time your 152 climbed at 4,600fpm like several of the fighters her can? Even some heavy fighters break 3,500fpm.
Climb rate gives a pretty good read on acceleration, which mean E generation.
I think you are just not comfortable with the game yet and are misreading E states.
-
Originally posted by LEDPIG
Hey guys, been playing this for a couple weeks now and i'm really wondering bout these flight dynamics.
Hi LEDPIG,
It was a pleasure working with you in the Training Arena earlier today, sorry I couldn't stay longer.
Regarding your question, I'd like to share a comparison of the EM diagrams for the real Spitfire and the AH Spitfire at 12,000ft that I did some time ago. The diagrams are shown below. You can see that they have the same corner velocity at that altitude and configuration. If we compare a 5g turn at the corner speed of 250mph, I've indicated on the diagram for the real Spitfire that it would need to descend at 16 degrees below the horizon to sustain that turn and it would turn a full circle in about 14.5 seconds with a radius of about 850ft. You can see from the diagram for the AH Spitfire that it would also make the same turn in about 14.5 seconds with a radius of 850ft, and that it would need to descend at an angle of 23 degrees below the horizon, a descending turn only 6 degrees steeper than the real aircraft. But the turn rates and radii for the turn, along with the corner speed are amazingly close. The difference in the angle of descent is probably due to differences in engine power available at that altitude between the real world tests and Aces High, and perhaps some differences in weight.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Files/Images/Spit1b.jpg)
.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Files/Images/Spit1a.jpg)
It is interesting that both diagrams are essentially the same shape, and that they agree quite closely in many respects, indicating that the flight model in Aces High has accounted for all of the aerodynamic factors that would influence the shape of the curves to any significant degree. I've made a similar comparison with the Spitfire and 109 from other simulations, and so far Aces High has first place for accuracy. I have also tested many other AH aircraft, and in every case the in game performance is always closely related to real world data for that aircraft. For example, you will notice that the real Spitfire was able to sustain about 2.6g on the stall boundary at 160mph, and that the AH Spitfire the value was 2.5g at almost exactly the same speed, a remarkably close match.
People on these boards no longer question that the flight models perform in accordance with real world data. Because data from different sources vary slightly, they now mainly argue about what set of data was used, or should have been used, and which source has greater merit. People argue about variations in real world and in game performance as small as one or two percent. So, if you have any real world performance data to throw into the pot, please do, you will probably find that for every data item you can provide, several other people will have data from other sources showing different results that will fuel much deep and meaningful debate :)
Hope that helps...
Badboy
-
Lepdig drop flaps and your problems will go away like a new wing is attached. It's aerodynamicliscious.
-
Originally posted by Badboy
Hi LEDPIG,
It was a pleasure working with you in the Training Arena earlier today, sorry I couldn't stay longer.
Regarding your question, I'd like to share a comparison of the EM diagrams for the real Spitfire and the AH Spitfire at 12,000ft that I did some time ago. The diagrams are shown below. You can see that they have the same corner velocity at that altitude and configuration. If we compare a 5g turn at the corner speed of 250mph, I've indicated on the diagram for the real Spitfire that it would need to descend at 16 degrees below the horizon to sustain that turn and it would turn a full circle in about 14.5 seconds with a radius of about 850ft. You can see from the diagram for the AH Spitfire that it would also make the same turn in about 14.5 seconds with a radius of 850ft, and that it would need to descend at an angle of 23 degrees below the horizon, a descending turn only 6 degrees steeper than the real aircraft. But the turn rates and radii for the turn, along with the corner speed are amazingly close. The difference in the angle of descent is probably due to differences in engine power available at that altitude between the real world tests and Aces High, and perhaps some differences in weight.
It is interesting that both diagrams are essentially the same shape, and that they agree quite closely in many respects, indicating that the flight model in Aces High has accounted for all of the aerodynamic factors that would influence the shape of the curves to any significant degree. I've made a similar comparison with the Spitfire and 109 from other simulations, and so far Aces High has first place for accuracy. I have also tested many other AH aircraft, and in every case the in game performance is always closely related to real world data for that aircraft. For example, you will notice that the real Spitfire was able to sustain about 2.6g on the stall boundary at 160mph, and that the AH Spitfire the value was 2.5g at almost exactly the same speed, a remarkably close match.
BADBOY that information is truly fascinating i'm so glad you chimed in, i thought it was pretty close, it seems the actual spitfire outperforms the sim by such a tiny amount its negligible. I wonder if sims have reached the point where we can throw in variables that change during an actual manuever test, and if we can throw in dynamic variables, that change increasing exponentially in time so the results are almost insantaneous, truly fascinating!:D
-
Badboy and Leadpig: the other factor you have to ask is how accurate was the test data back from 1939-1945? (I.e. equipment used, error factors, cross wind layers and headwinds, temperature variances at altitudes, pressure variances, as so on and so on).
Personally, I think with Aces High we can get more accurate data because of the availability of instant values. They're also software simulated and highly accurate. Also, todays machines are a whole lot more accurate than a 1940ish electro-wired-half-baked device. :D
-
Hi,
i also think not all is good with the AH FM(no FM ever will be perfect), but i guess your problem is 1. related to a bad sticksetup(to agressive and lead to uncontrollable fast stalls) and 2. to the irritating stall horn.
To find a good working sticksetup did need ages for me and for me it was most difficult in AH, but it make a huge different!
The stallhorn i found to be horrible and destroyed my feeling for the stalledge. Look for the EAW(European Air War) stallsound, it start smooth and get louder as more you get to the stalledge. For me this stallsound alone made a other game out of AH(maybe cause i was used to it from EAW).
Like in every flightsim and with every game engine you will find mistakes and limits, but all over AH dont seems to be that far off in general.
Edit: If you feel uncomfortable with the P38, try the FW190A. :D
Greetings, Knegel
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
i don't know who, but it has been talked about at CON's and elsewhere, but supposedly there is a few real WWI vets' includign a p38 pilot who fly AH, and supposedly they say it is as real as it gets.
I seriously doubt there are any WWI veterans flying AH II. They'd be well over 100 at least. Especially the pilots.
I believe it was Widewing who said he had a P-38 pilot friend (may be someone we both know) who tried AH and said the P-38 was not bad, but it lacked elevator authority, and had a couple of other issues. Of course, few, if any, of those guys actually fly anymore, I know most of the guys Widewing and I both know are grounded by health reasons, they are after all mostly in their 80's. And I doubt anyone who owns a P-38 would let a now 80 year old veteran act as PIC of his priceless P-38. Further, with the probable differences in controls (unless Widewing flies with a forcefeedback yoke and rudders) there is a difference in feel as well.
-
Virgil, I vaguely recall the reference being used, and it was more along the lines of WW2 P38 vets flying AH at a con, rather than a friend of a player. I got the impression they flew it themselves, i.e. had their own regular accounts. I can't back it up but it's an old reference -- might be out of date what with 2.0 then 2.07 changing things.
-
I'm actually quite sure Widewing had a friend who tried it, he posted about it, although he did not mention a name. It may have been as far back as early AH II or even late AH I. But it was a friend of Widewing's, I'm almost positive.
-
In the simulations people do not feel the g load so pulling a plane to the limits is very easy. In the real plane the pilot feels accelerations and adjust the control input according to that. In other words pulling 3-4 g in the simulator is common while in the real Cesna 152 it's very rare to go above 2 g.
gripen
-
On a con in Finland some WW2 vets tried AH,,,,or was it Il-2, or both.??
Then we had Stamper play online, but his ride was a Lancaster...
-
Originally posted by Widewing
However, you can loop a P-38 beginning at 150 mph, just gotta know how to do it.
My regards,
Widewing
And would you be so kind to give a brief tutorial on how to do exactly that?
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
And would you be so kind to give a brief tutorial on how to do exactly that?
Do you know the secret handshake?:D
-
I am curious LEDPIG. From what you said here:
Originally posted by LEDPIG
Wow that Johnny Johnson quote is really amazing. I wisk we could get his advice. Yea the Bonanza leap is a big one,never flown one, but thats a nice plane its almost pretty aerobatic itself. I'm just an aviation nut proud to be in good company!:D
Or more specifically: I wisk we could get his advice.
I get the impression that you work in Flight Sim development would that be correct?
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
And would you be so kind to give a brief tutorial on how to do exactly that?
Easy , you scream like a wookie and next you warp the space-time continuum around her.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I seriously doubt there are any WWI veterans flying AH II. They'd be well over 100 at least. Especially the pilots..
typo sorry....
but yeah the guy form the con is what i was talking about.
i know there are a few WWII vets flying AH, mostly not real vocal, but i remember hearing about them through the grapevine.
-
I was just clowning on the WWI thing, I knew it was a typo. Yeah, we have, or at least had a few veteran pilots here. Earl "Dutch" Miller is one, although I have not heard from him in a while. He flew AW as well. Although he flew the P-38, he flew the P-47 and P-39 more.
-
I rememeber a New Zealander Spitfire vet who flew the AH Spit for one of our NZ players. I recall the comment being that it was pretty good, but the roll response was mushy compared to the real thing.
-
Originally posted by Widewing However, you can loop a P-38 beginning at 150 mph, just gotta know how to do it.
Originally posted by hogenbor And would you be so kind to give a brief tutorial on how to do exactly that?
Here is an example with a P-38L I flew a few minutes ago. From a hard left hand turn at 140mph, I rolled out into a loop, speed went down to 20mph at one point, but the maneuver was completed without departure, as you can see in the film.
Film of a low speed loop in a P-38L (http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Files/Films/Loop.ahf)
Watch the firm first, I'll answer questions afterwards :)
Hope that helps...
Badboy
-
Here's another brief film demonstrating loops in the P-38G and F4U-1D. The film is zipped.
Both begin by taking off and leveling off immediately. As air speed passes 140 mph, the fighters are pulled into a loop. Typically, speed peaks at about 145 mph (as seen on E6B).
Most people would not recommend looping from nearly ground level, but it can be done without undue drama in a limited number of fighters. Just remember to pull off power on the way down.
Spitfires (any model) can't remain in plane, and invariably fall-off to the right, not being able to complete the loop headed in the original direction. Zeros do it well, as one would expect. The Hurricane Mk.I can do it, the but the Mk.IIC doesn't do nearly as well. You'll find the Ki-84 can do it, but can't remain in plane like the P-38G or f4U-1D/F4U-4. The Macchi C.202 can't do it at all. Another that does it well is the F6F-5, but the FM-2 falls out of plane more. I tried the Bf 110C. It was able to do the loop, but fell completely out of plane.
One surprise was the La-7. It was able to perform the loop and generally remain in plane, nearly as good as the F4U-4. It was significantly more stable at the top of the loop than any of the Spitfires. All were tested with 25% fuel, 1.0 fuel burn.
Here's the short film loopers (http://home.att.net/~historyworld/loopers.zip)
My regards,
Widewing
-
I am a historian by avocation, with a Masters. So I thought I would do some serious original research on AC Performance and the National Air and Space Museum. Holy crap. Spent a week down there and soon realized that nothing was going to be easy.
However I did have a real interesting chat with the some of the researchers at the Garber fascility. They made the very emphatic point that the performance of aircraft in the field differed by as much as +- 20% from their stated "on paper" capabilities. Plus or Minus 20% is huge. and is a wide enough margin for error to accomodate anyone's objections and most of the divergences we read in our sources.
Also, while HiTech claims to stick to historical accuracy, AND where ever I have been able to check it he seems to fall in line with what sources I have seen. I have yet to see a bibliography from Hitech Creations, and to a historian that emmediately smacks of academic dishonesty, and instantly calls into question the very notion that they have any real clue as to what is "historical".
So, while I used to go balistic over what I percieved as "a-historical" flight performance I have had to really rethink that whole stand. HT is doing the best they can with what they got, and I am pretty sure they don't have much.
-
OLtos,
For a historian or for an academic paper that is absolutely true, but for a business in competition with other businesses they have to protected their data. A lot of money and work goes into it and it isn't the kind of think that can be freely handed away. That they don't publish their sources doesn't mean that they don't have solid, historical data.
-
IMHO there is large grey area; generally the flight dynamics of the game itself is more or less business secret of the HTC. But of course it's open for discussion if one can point out clear evidence that there is something wrong with the game.
Performance data is a bit different case; probably more than 99% of the data is from public archives but dugging it out might take a lot of time and effort so it's understandable that HTC does not reveal their sources.
Anyway, if somebody want argue about the data here in BBS, the data should be verifyable and methods/sources open just like in the academic world. Otherwise there would be no sensible discussion.
gripen
-
Somethings strange..
Was checking a skin I was doing offline and got sidetracked.
When I came back the Spit 9 was at 40k!!!!
So I looked at skin and threw it into a power dive.
Reached a shade over 600mph (ground speed on e6b) close to sea level!!!!!, with it slowly levelling out as it reached the ground.
Without losing anything!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Somethings strange..
Was checking a skin I was doing offline and got sidetracked.
When I came back the Spit 9 was at 40k!!!!
So I looked at skin and threw it into a power dive.
Reached a shade over 600mph (ground speed on e6b) close to sea level!!!!!, with it slowly levelling out as it reached the ground.
Without losing anything!!!!!
Have you seen this from another thread? Two of us have dived Me 262s and reached Mach one between 18k and 20k. I can't tell if E6B pegs at Mach one or that there is a programmed limit of Mach one. Either way, the 262 should never get above Mach 0.86 without tuck-under followed by break-up. Tuck-under is not modeled for any aircraft.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/Mach1-262.jpg)
Also, I was able to dive the Me 163 to Mach 0.92 and pull out using trim. The plane suffered no damage.
Read through the thread titled sound barrier (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=178629).
My regards,
Widewing
-
That's right. It's difficult enough for these gys to make money. Their stick in trade is the flight model.
-Blogs
Originally posted by Karnak
OLtos,
For a historian or for an academic paper that is absolutely true, but for a business in competition with other businesses they have to protected their data. A lot of money and work goes into it and it isn't the kind of think that can be freely handed away. That they don't publish their sources doesn't mean that they don't have solid, historical data.
-
I would think it's primarily the difference in wing loading on these military planes, which is twice or more that of the light civil aviation craft.
Take off with all the gas and ammo you can carry and a number of these planes are only marginally stable.
-Blogs
Originally posted by LEDPIG
Hey guys, been playing this for a couple weeks now and i'm really wondering bout these flight dynamics....
-
When is the last time a WW2 Vet flew in AH? Just like to point out the flight model was changed what, a month ago? I've not heard of many actual WW2 Vets flying AH recently (other than that paladinsfo that flew his P51B against F-86 Sabres and won regularly:rolleyes: )
-
Well, how close could it be sitting by a table watching a screen with two pieces of moulded plastic in your hand when you have been taken to the sky by nearly two thousand blaring horsepowers and had multiple Gs squeezing your body?
Pretty close? Nah.
My point is that it takes time to realize the relative performance in a virtual world, so to me the veteran comments sound more like giving him a postcard of war and asking if it was like that back then. He'll probably give you a polite smile and say: " Yes son, it was pretty much like that. " :)
-C+
-
Yep, thats it!!
And if you would sit him down in his real old warbird, where someone did introduce powered controlls with much to strong servos and a very short joystick, he probably would stall all the time, like a newbe in AH, who dont take the time to adjust the stick sensitivity.
Then he probably would complain exact what you can read in the initial post, cause he would waste his energy like mad, cause he isnt able to fly smooth. ;)
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I was just clowning on the WWI thing, I knew it was a typo. Yeah, we have, or at least had a few veteran pilots here. Earl "Dutch" Miller is one, although I have not heard from him in a while. He flew AW as well. Although he flew the P-38, he flew the P-47 and P-39 more.
Don't believe Earl has ever flown AH, or if he did it was very early. He did spend a lot of time in AW. Great guy to get to know. He had 225 combat missions with the 345th FS, 350th FG flying P39s, P38Gs and P47s from 42-44 from North Africa up into Italy. Silver Star and DFC for his efforts. As he said at the AW Indy Con. He never shot any German aircraft down, but he did shoot a few of em up :)
-
I was thinking Earl popped in about the time EA
was killing AW off. But only for a very short period of time.
-
IIRC one Finnish war veteran said that the flying on the screen is different because you fly the plane only on relation to the picture on the screen where as IRL you always fly your plane on relation to horizon. I know it sounds a bit strange but if I do remember this quote correctly I think it means that we can pretty easily and without boundaries choose any angle we like and fly the plane free of G forces where as they had to fly the planes dominantly in relation to earth which determined the direction of the major accelerating force.
It would probably dominate our angles too if we wouldn't be able to see the sights even at slight negative Gs. By this I try to point out that the strongest indication of G forces in game is the movement of our view during maneuvering. Now it is too stable but that is one of those things that has to be made to suit the majority of player base.
-C+