Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Boroda on September 01, 2001, 10:41:00 AM
-
http://www.sukhoi.ru/cgi-bin/forum/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=000264 (http://www.sukhoi.ru/cgi-bin/forum/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=000264)
It's a thread on a Russian IL-2 board where I tried to ask some questions asked here to Oleg. It turned to be an interesting discussion about flight-models and other aspects of FlightSim industry.
The key point about roll rates is that Oleg's team doesn't model "compression" the way most of the modern flightsims do.
He simply doesn't model the "stick load" as, for example, in WB, where flying Ki-43 at certain speed you can move stick in any direction with no reaction. In Il-2 stick is mechanically connected to control surfaces. So, you can easily move the stick to a position what could demand a 40-50kg force in RL.
NACA roll rate charts were tested with standard ~20kg force applied to stick. I bet that pilots like Ivan Kozhedub (who could cross himself with a 32-kg weight) were able to apply up to maybe 50-60kg to stick. So, imagine that we are all weight-lifters and bodybuilders in IL-2.
This approach can be discussed, but I think that it can be found reasonable. It's Oleg's game, and asking him to follow the traditions means to make a quite different game. Like asking the "Digger" designers to change the controls completely.
-
It does make sense, but why do I want to fly a sim with fly-by-wire planes?
He should only do that if EVERYONE had very realistic force feedback joysticks.
-
um.....anyone got a link to a translator that handles russian?
1st question: If he doesnt model compression the way other sims do then how does he model it?
(http://www.swoop.com/images/logo_small.jpg)
-
1st question: If he doesnt model compression the way other sims do then how does he model it?
He doesn't model it.
That's why Animal's "Fly by wire" statement is right on the money.
AKDejaVu
-
The question he asked there: please, what does "compression" mean? ;)
IL-2 physical model has many aerodinamical effects included. Probably even some that were not known back in 1940-s.
He already said that he doesn't know any "realistic" FFB sticks.
Translator: www.translate.ru (http://www.translate.ru)
-
Compression, as ive understood,is modeled. Compression means, that you reach speed, where your aeliron movements doesent have any effect to the plane roll/whatever. If you reach 100% deflection when you compress, it has no affect to your plane or only very slight. In AH you can reach it easily in p38, but jug breaks up before that speed.
Also pilot strenght is modeled in il-2, but its not that restricted as 50lbs max, someone stated that its 40-50kg in il-2; makes big difference in performance of higher speeds like over 300mph. 50kg is no big deal atleast with 2 hands and pull/push. Sideways are different.
There was no aerodyamic restriction of 109-g2 rolling almost as fast as some 190 models, atleast this has been stated by Oleg and i have no doubt about hes professionalism in aerodynamics. Only difference can be seen in NACA charts, theyre accurate, but only to 50lbs stick forces. The quoted books have very different statemens, but i believe the stories are not made up. The pilot just maybe were fatigued, newbie or had bad petrolium. AH is not based on book statements, but on test charts, same goes on il-2.
(http://people.freenet.de/tpics/defl-v250-1a.JPG)
(250kmh/156mph)
(http://people.freenet.de/tpics/defl-v670a.JPG)
(650kmh/406mph)
(notice the speed and aeliron deflection)
"I've made some (very simple) rollrate-tests, and according to these tests, the ME109 takes approx. 2,5 seconds for a360°-roll @250km/h and 5 seconds @650KM/h (same altitude, both throttle @0%, left roll)
So, I see a decrease in rollrate with speed."
[ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: Tuomio ]
-
Pilot strenght is modeled.
You can watch how much you can deflect the stick at various speeds in the cockpit. Use forward down view.
(http://gruenherz.carnimaniac.pronym.org/files/screenshots/8/roll1.JPG)
(http://gruenherz.carnimaniac.pronym.org/files/screenshots/8/roll2.JPG)
Red arrows point to maximum stick deflections and speed indicator. In both cases joystick is fully deflected.
Also, read http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/Forum35/HTML/001701.html (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/Forum35/HTML/001701.html)
[ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: Hristo ]
-
Remember, all of those gauges have meaning, especially the throttle.
Try to apply 1.6-1.7 (100% throttle) for 10 minutes, and you break your manifold. Then you get degrading performance, until you can apply only 0.7 ata max.
Thats the engine management were talking. We also have radiator management, which is another issue. Radiator have manual uses in almost every aircraft, every aircraft generated drag when radiator is opened (modeled). 109 has the biggest performance degrade when radiator is opened. Also, in MP you can zoom in and see the radiator setting of your enemy.
:D
-
What Boroda seems to be saying is that there are no stick forces modeled other than the springs in your joystick. That's probably OK for a single player air-to-ground sim.
As for the "fly by wire" comments, ALL flight sims are fly by wire.
Compression is (incorrect) flight sim pilot lingo for increase in stick forces due to dynamic pressure.
Compressibility effects are something different, which occur once the aircraft's critical Mach has been reached. Depending on the particular aircraft, this can cause the controls to be impossible to move, or easy to move but completely ineffective.
[ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
The engine/radiator management I really like. It has added a whole new variable into combat.
I find myself constantly flipping switches and pushing buttons all the while trying to kill my target. Pilot load is most enjoyable.
I still don't know where Oleg stands on modelling pilot strength to push the stick one way or the other.
To not model pilot strength(and weakness for that matter), would be ludicrous.
A pilot is what makes the aircraft, not the other way around.
Hell, let's just do away with turbulence, compression, drag and other variables that affect an aircraft's performance. Afterall, aren't these variables adversely affecting the *true* performance of the aircraft?
How stupid.
-
Have you seen the pics. Pilot strenght is there ! Or am I missing something ?
-
Pilot Strength? Arrows, Diagrams?
God you guys are total studmuffin/geeks, and whats the stinger is, you can't defend that hard, gay, plain truth!
Good Lord.
Borrow StSantas rent, I mean wacky WWII helmet, and just geek the fuk out.
Fools.
-
LOL, I have no idea what Creamo just said. Anyone have a translation?
-
I'd Say that those Pictures above summerize, pretty simply, that compression is OBVIOUSLY enabled.
I dont get you people here. You rant and rave about aces high cabilities being superior. I think you guys are going to be editing your posts, when IL2 goes the same route as far as mulitplay is concerned.
Comparing Aces to IL2 is apples and oranges when talking about the multiplay aspect.
Other wise IL2 is the far superior peice of technology.
Just look at who is being the role model now?
Id say that more additions that IL2 has (example Gyroscopic gunsight) are going to be added. It will not be long untill htc, starts layering textures to simulate trees.
Also, the problems that are hindering Aces High Direct X capibilites are, and have already been solved by IL2. Who do you really think is more on the ball here?
Not only does IL2 give you direct X support, but also openGL, which time after time has proven to be the more fluid, crossplatform, efficent api.
Give IL2 the chance to get out of Prebeta first, then try to mock it. So far IL2 has more going for it than Aces did when it was beta.
-
have to agree with that, il2 beta certainly appears better than aces high beta.. but aces high isnt beta and il2 is so ... :)
-
Fscott- Take all the pix, arguments, add arrows, roadkill, a inside joke on StSanta being broke but wanting to buy a stupid fuk WWII helmet = a laugh.
I wont say Olegs boxed game is the next coming of free potatos and single malt scotch for all Americans, but did that help?
If that didn't seem clear... refer to the God "You guys are total studmuffin/geeks" section. :)
[ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]
-
Why theres such witch hunt mentality going on here?
Would it be better if IL-2 wouldn't exist?
Remember how some of todays AH players were "burning the witch" when AH came first time and they thought WB is the only one?
If some people are enthusiac of IL-2, why not to let them be?
No need to go talk crap of a game you haven't even tried or just tried for short time.
Theres been many wrong claims of IL-2 by those witch hunters.
It is still beta, like AH was well over a year ago. (and as I understand, it is of first beta and currently they're going on at 0.04 or so)
-
Fishu, I like Il2.
It's the "Your heads are in the Sand" anti-AH posts that are getting the flack.
We went through this prior to WWIIOL, and we should not laugh once again for a boxed sim?
These anti-AH guys with a deep desire to say "I Told You So!" clogging the BBS reap what they ask for ten-fold.
Il2 is cool.
-
Tard
-
Hmm correct me if I'm wrong but did Oleg said he's thinking about creating online game? This is crarry :eek:
-
Originally posted by Creamo:
Pilot Strength? Arrows, Diagrams?
God you guys are total studmuffin/geeks, and whats the stinger is, you can't defend that hard, gay, plain truth!
Good Lord.
Borrow StSantas rent, I mean wacky WWII helmet, and just geek the fuk out.
Fools.
reach for those meds you like to froth about creamo...maybe double your perscription..
-
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
Aces has atrificially dampend down Feel/Roll/stick imputs to compensate for lag..
THE ONLY THING i dont understand is WHY!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deez, why don't you tell us why? You're the one who keeps fabricating false and deragatory statements about our flight model and motives. Oh wait, you already have told us why.
Perhaps the reason we model stick forces is because we think it's an important characteristic? Throw that out and in theory, the Zero would outroll the F6F at 350 mph. In practice, it did not. If you think that's a better way to do it, you're entitled to that opinion. Just don't issue it by making stuff up about what we do and why and then state it as fact.
--------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
"
looks like someone understood fundimentaly why the 109g2 in IL2 handles a lot differently then the one in AH quite awhile ago...
-
The key point about roll rates is that Oleg's team doesn't model "compression" the way most of the modern flightsims do.
He simply doesn't model the "stick load" as, for example, in WB, where flying Ki-43 at certain speed you can move stick in any direction with no reaction. In Il-2 stick is mechanically connected to control surfaces. So, you can easily move the stick to a position what could demand a 40-50kg force in RL.
NACA roll rate charts were tested with standard ~20kg force applied to stick. I bet that pilots like Ivan Kozhedub (who could cross himself with a 32-kg weight) were able to apply up to maybe 50-60kg to stick. So, imagine that we are all weight-lifters and bodybuilders in IL-2.
IL-2 basically simulate maximum stick deflection LIKE AH!!! If you watch the ailleron deflection of a 109 at high speeds in AH, you´ll see that the maximum deflection is reduced!!
IL-2 and AH do the calculation in a different way, but the result or let´s say the basic approch to simulate the result is the same.
I´ve a report here what describes exactly how NACA did flight tests of ailleron characteristics. It´s name is "Naca procedure for flight tests of aileron characteristics of airplanes".
some quotes:
"Aileron contorl forces
...
Forece recorders or indicators from which only the maximum force that occurred during a manoeuvrer can be obtained are unsatisfactory because the force required to deflect the ailerons abruply almost always exceeds the steady force required to hold the ailerons deflected on account of control-system inertia. In most naca flight tests forces are recorded by an automatically recording instrument synchronized with the rolling -velocity recorder. When this system is not used, however, it has been found that good resurlts may be obtained by using a force indicator held between the pilots hand and the stick or wheel. The pilot (or observer) reads the indicated force required to hold the contorl deflected. Errosrs encountered in the indicator mehtod are fairly small, because the ailoer hinge moments remain essentially constant as long as the rolling velocity is near its maximum value"
"General suggestions
Aileron strength limitations
...
With modern highspeed airplanes having highly balanced ailerons or booster-type controls, however, the possiblillity of breaking the ailerons or permanently deforming the wing structure is greatly increased - particularly in lateral control tests when a pilot may attempt to obtain a specified deflection of the ailerons regardless of accompanying control forces"
In simple words: you´ll always find a method to deflect aillerons fully, even at 500mph - BUT the question is whether your wing design takes damage. If so, the rollrate at this speed is maybe very good in a single test fight, but useless in a combat situation - maybe even dangerous if structural damage occurs.
niklas
-
Niklas,
Talking of that, one propeller passenger plane went down like that almost.
Wing froze, they entered into spin and dive.
Pilot tried to pull up, but instead tail gave up and was tore away due to excessive forces put in it.
-
Oh man, I wish I could talk about it ... compressibility and roll/climb rates ... :rolleyes:
Uhmmm, someone is knocking on my door ... :eek:
-
Originally posted by Tuomio:
Compression, as ive understood,is modeled. Compression means, that you reach speed, where your aeliron movements doesent have any effect to the plane roll/whatever. If you reach 100% deflection when you compress, it has no affect to your plane or only very slight. In AH you can reach it easily in p38, but jug breaks up before that speed.
[ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: Tuomio ]
Obviously someone who's never done testing in AH on the P38 and P47. :)
I tested these two A/C exclusively for our last TOD...jug goes about 80 mph faster in a dive before losing aileron control, and yes, in one piece.
-
Originally posted by Swoop:
um.....anyone got a link to a translator that handles russian?
It may be better for you (and the whole US audience and Oleg himself, considering he wants to sell his game here too) that you cannot read the russian site. Not only is Oleg even more arrogant, self-righteous and overbearing in Russian then he is in English, the term he uses to refer to the western audience is very derogatory.
To parafrase poster on this board "you can take a guy out of communism but you cannot take communism out of a guy"...
I am sure the game will be great though.
miko
[ 09-04-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]
-
Miko - that's just a daft thing to say. I've met Oleg, and the way you've described him is just waaaaay off the mark.
-
Miko, Oleg is an interesting person.
Russian Warbirders were introduced ot IL-2 team in Feb, 1999, when they had only a 3D engine and a very simple FM, and we had a chance to talk a little at Moscow Airshow this August.
From my short experience of personal communication with him I can say that he is extremely self-confident and doesn't care much about his opponent's point of view. It's almost impossible to argue with him. Hehe, it's his game and he has the right to do so ;) But there is absoulutely no reason for your "communism" remark. Hehe, sometimes he is accused of trusting German sources too much :)
If you red the thread I posted - you'll see that Russian WB community has many questions to Oleg, and looks like we are the only group there that is very far from being "cheerleaders".
As for "roll-rates" or "pilot's strength and fatigue" - I finaly decided that I don't understand what Oleg's trying to say, and how this things are modeled or not. The final flight model will be just "reality, given to us through sences". Forget it and be happy.
-
Originally posted by JG5_Jerry:
Miko - that's just a daft thing to say. I've met Oleg, and the way you've described him is just waaaaay off the mark.
I gues what I ment to say was "Oleg sounds more arrogant, self-righteous and overbearing in Russian then he does in English".
Obviously the words "Oleg is" were not semantically correct to use because person's character does not really change when he switches to another language.
I am sure Oleg is a very nice person and even if he were really arrogant and overbearing, he's earned my respect anyway.
You were lucky to meet him personally but I've just read his posts there in his native language and they were the basis of my statement.
I believe that someone's opinion of him would in no way improve based on that russian board, especially if the reader is a westerner. That is why I did not volunteer to translate the posts.
Boroda: But there is absoulutely no reason for your "communism" remark. Hehe, sometimes he is accused of trusting German sources too much
This remark had nothing to do with the technical issue discussed or sources used and was not directed towards Oleg (only) but towards many people in the community using that russian-language board. Including you, BTW - it was your post that originated the topic and introduced the term in question. :)
You justly express your irritation that some idiots among western audience (when incapable of coming up with a decent refutal in a techical argument and too lazy to do research and come back later) start throwing around stereotypes like "Stalin, Siberia, backward russians, white bears, etc." After all, russian science and technology can stand proud and is second to none in it's accomplishments (though built on bones and blood of millions of innocent victims).
At the same time you (and Oleg) use a term of bolshevics origin referring to us that is analogous to using "nazi" when referring to germans or "commies" when referring to russians.
It strikes me as a surprise that modern russians - whose country suffered most from communism - would use communist terminology designed by communist propagandists for the murdering mob when talking about westerners, especially when talking about purely technical disagreement. After all, there is supposedly no longer class struggle to the death between Russia and the West.
I hope that people there are just using that term without thinking much and it does not mean any real hostility, but it is still good (IMO) that some westerner cannot read the board and get upset like I was.
P.S. Why on earth would you call yourself "commissar", especially in russian where it is not exotic meaningless rank? I understand this is only a game, but isn't there too much evil associated with this word in Russian.
My grand-grandmother actually was one. :(
miko
-
Ok ;) If it counts, I've helped Oleg with some research material for the sim and he's always been very kind and courteous. The fact that he's spent 1 year+ getting ideas and suggestions from the sim community speaks volumes, to me at least. I'm not a groupie by any means, but fair play!
-
Well, 360 roll time of around 3 seconds for the Bf 109G sounds about twice as fast it really was. My best quess for explanation is that their sources used radian values for rolling velocites and they calculated translation to the degrees wrong. If the Bf 109G did at best say 1,4 rad/s then the correct translation is 360/2pi and this results about 80 deg/s but I quess they used 360/pi which results 160 deg/s.
gripen
-
GRIPEN.
In Oleg's latest russian speak, he said the bf109 does not have a faster rollrate than the fw190.
SO I think it has more than likely been toned down a bit to represent a less than superhuman strength pilot.
-
At 250km/h this is not a stick force issue but almost certainly a mistake somewhere. Another possiblity is biased data but to me it seems to be wrong formula for translating radians to degrees.
gripen
-
Just posting for further clarification. As Funkedup correctly posted, compressiblity begins when the critical Mach number is achieved. What this draws from is the fact that air is 'Compressible'. It compresses into shock waves at very highspeeds. Basically, the critical Mach number is the speed at which shockwaves begin to form on the aircraft. This is the beginning of the transonic region.
Note: The main regions of flight most modern combat aircraft deal with are: (1)Subsonic-The airflow around the flight vehicle is completely, well, subsonic, below the speed of sound. (2) Transonic- The airflow around the aircraft is subsonic in some areas and supersonic in others. The combination of the two generally leads to very high drag, which is why aircraft typically need alot of power to break the sound barrier (compared to subsonic aircraft).(3) Supersonic-The airflow around the aircraft is fully developed supersonic flow.)
Now, most aircraft of the period would begin to 'compress' in a dive because the air flowing over the top of the wing would become supersonic. The result is a rearward shift in the aerodynamic center. One result of this is that the pitching moment generated by the wing may now become too great for the tail to overcome. (Since the designers didn't know much about this phenomena or how to size the horizontal stabs/elevators to overcome this). Now add in that the shockwaves will effect the airflow, which can effect flight control effectiveness, create wake turbulence that structurally damages the aircraft, and based on the 'design' (Configuration, airfoils used, incidence angles, etc) can have all sorts of detrimental effects on the 'tail' control surfaces.
As such, you can see why when aircraft entered compressibility, it could be very difficult to recover from, sinc egenerally the aircraft would want to increase its dive angle as a result of these effects, therefore speeding up even more, which just exacerbated the problem.
I hope I didn't get in too deep for some of you. I was just trying to offer a somewhat simplified and somewhat accurate explanation for what the effect of 'compressibility' is and does to aircraft.
-
Miko, what did you mean by "communist terminology"?
The only thing I can guess is that it was the word "буржуй" ("bourzhui"), meaning the foreign flightsim community.
Miko, in modern Russian slang "bourzhui" means "a foreigner from the capitalist country". For example: Poles or Bulgarians are not "bourzhuis".
Or should I call the foreign community in a ceremonial Chineese way, like "наши драгоценные преждерожденные единочаятели с запада"? ;) (www.orduss.ru - Miko, they have put Holm van Zaitchik's "Case of an avid barbarian" online, definetly worth reading :))
The general sarcastic tone of my letters there is caused by my disappointment and inability to imagine any reason for this contradictions. As I already said - I finaly admitted that I am unable to understand Oleg's explanations, and stopped worrying.
Why I call myself "commissar": back in 1997, when we formed 25th IAP, the first Russian-speaking squad in WB, we have chosen "ranks" for everyone of 10 members. I became a "commissar" because I talk more then fly ("Вам хорошо, товарищ замполит: рот закрыли - рабочее место убрано" :)). "Hen is not a bird, commissar is not a pilot". It was a joke. Later it resulted in preparing glintwein at the meetings and deciding what should we drink now ;) (замполлитр, или поллитрук ;) :)
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
[QB][/QB]
Boroda, to put things into perspective, I did not claim in my original post that Oleg was a bad person or that people posting on the russian forun were bad or anti-west communists. Just that a westerner reading that could form a mistaken negative impression - because of culture differences, etc.
There certainly seem a lot of culture differences for me - those accumulated over 11 years I've lived in US.
I certainly believe you that there is no offence ment. I might doubt the use of divisive terminology in any case because nnobody ever prospered brom division. If the term is innocent for russians, there is no problem for them in using it where weterners have no chance to see it. Quite like the american term "Jap" which is just an innocent contraction but apparently offends japanese.
To me the word "bourzhui" meant "evil class enemies scheduled for eventual extermination", about the same negative loading as "fascists". I would use term "westerners" myself.
On this topic the further discussion is kind of pointless because we are not at odds but just exploring different meanings of the word and it's perception by different cultures.
If I see you stop using that word "bourzhui" in the future, I would be glad. If not, I will not be upset in the least because I know it does not mean what I first suspected... :)
On a side note, it is curious how ignorant many russians still are about workings of western society - the P51 conspiracy that would not let any games to be published if P51 is not the best plane - as an example. :)
A word "comissar" for me, thou obviously not for many others is associated with the worst that the communism has ever prodiced. I base my prejudices on books and statements of eyewitnecces, including some surviving relatives.
Army commissars were an independent chain of command separate from line officers who were representatives of the party. Their job was to watch for signs of "treason", moral and political "immaturity" among officers and soldiers.
Despite image build in movies of comissars raising soldiers in the decisive assault and leading from the front, their real job was spying, forcing people to become informers, collecting damaging information for real or imagined fault, terrorising their own people.
In short, the commissar was not a man who lead soviet soldiers but who shot them in the back of the head.
Unlike regular officers, who could do their job well by executing orders of superiors (or at least losing enough of their soldiers to make an impression that they did all they could) and reporting enourmous casualties caused to the enemy, comissars had to show uncovered "traitors" and "enamies of the people" with the easiest outcome for the involved being demotion and penal batallions where life expectancy was counted in days.
If some comissar went soft and found fewer "e.o.p.s" then the next one, he would be first on the list of his superior comissar, but of course soft persons never went into business of exterminating their own people.
I hope I do not offend you and I am interested in you take on that. Maybe in a different thread because we are getting way far from the roll rates here... ;)
Regards,
miko
-
Originally posted by fscott:
GRIPEN.
In Oleg's latest russian speak, he said the bf109 does not have a faster rollrate than the fw190.
SO I think it has more than likely been toned down a bit to represent a less than superhuman strength pilot.
I’m curious about this. If it is true, particularly after the manner in which Oleg defended this point with reference to Russian flight test documents, it raises a serious credibility issue. Do you have a quote or a link?
Badboy
-
Badboy,
From here,
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/Forum35/HTML/001213-4.html (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/Forum35/HTML/001213-4.html)
Oleg said,
1. IF I'm wrong - I always will try to correct myself and say to all that I was wrong. In Demo we get P-39N-1 roll rate 2,2 sec....(that is exact digit, which show program itself in our special tools) Ok. It differs from what I twice checked for that weekend. The best roll rate for that plane was 3,4 sec. Better than P-63A ! And I know why.... So in final we'll get something like that digit.
-
wells,
Yep I saw that post regarding the P-39 but I haven't seen Oleg retract his statement regarding the roll rate of the 109 v 190 as suggested in this post by fscot.
Originally posted by fscott:
In Oleg's latest russian speak, he said the bf109 does not have a faster rollrate than the fw190.
Is there a quote or a link to support that?
Bbadboy
-
Badboy, you need to translate the link in the first post of this thread.
He is referring to early model Fw190's such as a3, of which I totally agree. Later model 190's had too much weight on wings to roll like the a3/4