Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Getback on January 23, 2009, 06:11:20 AM
-
I see we have so many planes and yet there are so many yet to be introduced. How do you model the real flight characteristics of such planes? Is there a way to get such data?
I'm just curious.
-
I see we have so many planes and yet there are so many yet to be introduced. How do you model the real flight characteristics of such planes? Is there a way to get such data?
I'm just curious.
Taking a stab here ...
If you have all the correct dimensions for a plane ... and then applying those dimensions to aeronautical mathematical equations along with proprietary algorithms ... you can properly "model" the flight of a plane ... once you have that completed, I believe that HTC would then compare their virtual model data to data that was collected "back in the day".
-
Taking a stab here ...
If you have all the correct dimensions for a plane ... and then applying those dimensions to aeronautical mathematical equations along with proprietary algorithms ... you can properly "model" the flight of a plane ... once you have that completed, I believe that HTC would then compare their virtual model data to data that was collected "back in the day".
Now that is cool!
-
I know nothing in this subject, but I have heard that one of the reasons it takes so long to model a new plane, is that they gather contemporary sources, actual data from WW2. For example, to model the BF 109, they read through test data (or what survives of it) for that aircraft, pilots reports etc. It takes a long time to compile the data.
This is just what I've heard though, so I may be waaaay off the mark. But I believe thats the reason for the RV8 being in Game. HT has a real RV8, and he uses the model to tweak the FM in game.
-
After it has been created it needs to be tried out by the HTC test pilot.
Only problem is that between naps, feeding and play dates the window
for flight ops is slim to none. Here is the first AH WWI model on it's way
to being wring out and put thru the ropes...
(http://www.eaa1000.av.org/pix/pedplane.gif)
-
Taking a stab here ...
If you have all the correct dimensions for a plane ... and then applying those dimensions to aeronautical mathematical equations along with proprietary algorithms ... you can properly "model" the flight of a plane ... once you have that completed, I believe that HTC would then compare their virtual model data to data that was collected "back in the day".
Last I heard, when Pyro can find the data...they model the plane. The "model" is generic.
-
I think what NB means to say is that the "flight model" is the universal rules that all the planes operate within. Adding a plane involves assigning values for quite a bit of varibles that are required for the flight model to simulate flight accurately. Brooke has a few papers regarding applying mathmatical equations to predict physical performance. The math behind turning (http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/aces_high/stallSpeedMath/turningMath.html) is a good example. That's without even mentioning building an accurate 3d model to scale, accurate art, assigning values for the damage model, and debugging any problems with a plane hitting a large number of performance data points in flight. Plus other issues I probably couldn't begin to guess at.
-
And all this is why they are the "Makers" are we are the "Players".
-
I thought Pyro and HiTech goto the local airplane bar posing as WWII historic photographers. The find an aircraft that has already had a few too many and that they haven't used before and strike up a conversation. They keep feeding the plane drinks and saying that the work for a famous historic society and ask if they can take some pictures. They take the plane to a warehouse somewhere and snap some provocative pictures of the aircraft in compromising poses. Then they tell the hapless aircraft that the have to go and get the money to pay for the shoot. The aircraft never sees them again and a few months later sees the "modeling" pictures of itself on the internet. The aircraft is soon found facedown in its own oil in a dive hotel while HTC rakes in the dough generated by exploiting the poor young aircraft model. :noid
-
I thought Pyro and HiTech goto the local airplane bar posing as WWII historic photographers. The find an aircraft that has already had a few too many and that they haven't used before and strike up a conversation. They keep feeding the plane drinks and saying that the work for a famous historic society and ask if they can take some pictures. They take the plane to a warehouse somewhere and snap some provocative pictures of the aircraft in compromising poses. Then they tell the hapless aircraft that the have to go and get the money to pay for the shoot. The aircraft never sees them again and a few months later sees the "modeling" pictures of itself on the internet. The aircraft is soon found facedown in its own oil in a dive hotel while HTC rakes in the dough generated by exploiting the poor young aircraft model. :noid
Hmmm, did your Super Bowl party start a bit early??? :noid
-
Is the AHII flight engine similar to the one in the X-Plane series of sims?
-
Hmmm, did your Super Bowl party start a bit early??? :noid
nope, just being a wizeazz. ie taking how is an airplane "modeled" and turning it around into internet airplane pr0n. :noid
you missed the sarcasm I guess.
-
A lot of what they do is like throwing darts. Sometimes I think they hit somewhere on the dartboard, but more often than not they miss. The thing is so much can not be modelled due to the lack of real life models to test and try out and push the envelope like we do in the game.
The other thing is when they make a model, they seem to blend a few different versions together and "puuf" they have their own hybrid. Evidently ther Spit5 and 109G-10 were those aircraft at one point in time for this game (that was prior to my time). Also, when they pick a model for whatever reason they dont seem to pay attention to which one was more popular, more used, etc. Case in point: the AH2 Mossie FB Mk VI has "exhaust/flame dampeners", when in fact less than %20 the real deal FB Mk VI had them installed for night fighting. Those dempeners slow down the Mossie 5-10mph (iirc) depending on alt robbing the Mossie of one of its biggest assets: speed. According to the real speed charts, a Mossie Mk6 should be able to outrun the Spit16 at 15k... but it cant, at least not in AH2. I've not outrun a Spit16 yet.
While we're on the subject of the Spit16... talk about something FAR over-modelled... THAT plane is it.
-
looks above....
there are always "those" people that know so much better.
-
Taking a stab here ...
If you have all the correct dimensions for a plane ... and then applying those dimensions to aeronautical mathematical equations along with proprietary algorithms ... you can properly "model" the flight of a plane ... once you have that completed, I believe that HTC would then compare their virtual model data to data that was collected "back in the day".
I doubt that they go to the trouble of actually creating an accurate CFD model and then use it to define all flight characteristics. That's a lot of work. I'm guessing they use some basic kinematic expressions for the inertial aspects and then lump in known wind tunnel and flight test data (i.e. Widewing's moldy old charts :aok) to fully characterize a plane. Then it's test test test.
Kudo's to Pyro and HiTech though. We probably have the best flight model of any sim out there.
-
looks above....
there are always "those" people that know so much better.
Great contribution, ... and your thoughts on how things are modelled?
-
:lol
" Also, when they pick a model for whatever reason they dont seem to pay attention to which one was more popular, more used, etc."
Keep going, this is great. Great avatar too, probably as good as any mugshot.
-
Great contribution, ... and your thoughts on how things are modelled?
I dunno... I spend most of the working day building the real thing. I certainly don't poke at those that spend their time trying to emulate it for the masses that will never be able to experience it.
How about you there mr. wizard?
-
Bodhi, He might know about that 80' pine in 2 years. :aok
-
I dunno... I spend most of the working day building the real thing. I certainly don't poke at those that spend their time trying to emulate it for the masses that will never be able to experience it.
How about you there mr. wizard?
So you tinker with the "real thing" for your working hours, that makes you an expert in modeling the real thing for sim use? I'm not newb to flying and I certainly dont consider myself any sort of expert in coding, but if you read my post close enough my biggest issue is their lack of addressing the proven inaccuracies with multiple AH2 aircraft such as their Mossie Mk6 and Spit16. I certainly wouldnt want their job and I do appreciate their efforts (something I have also mentioned more than once). With all that being said... you still want to carry on this slap session? Bronk, you?
-
I dunno... I spend most of the working day building the real thing. I certainly don't poke at those that spend their time trying to emulate it for the masses that will never be able to experience it.
How about you there mr. wizard?
When Bohdi isn't building the real thing he's our public relations manager. He's so soft and cuddly you know...
All I heard from the people who know (Dale, actually, a few cons ago) is it's a mixture of lookup tables and calculations. No, it's not X-Plane; Austin would very likely curl up and die in a furball trying to do all that math. AH is also geared to lower end systems. As for what they calculate and what they look up? I have no idea...I didn't ask.
The question is reasonable, but IP being what it is you're unlikely to know the answer (unless you get hired by HTC, then you won't be able to tell anyone anyway).
-
With all that being said... you still want to carry on this slap session? Bronk, you?
Back up this staement then we'll talk.
While we're on the subject of the Spit16... talk about something FAR over-modelled... THAT plane is it.
Appears to be fairly close to stuff here ---->http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html
But what do they know compared to your 1337 knowledge. :aok
-
Back up this staement then we'll talk.
Appears to be fairly close to stuff here ---->http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html
But what do they know compared to your 1337 knowledge. :aok
Do a search for the Mossie. Multiple people have posted in multiple thread with evidence suggesting the inaccuracies of the AH2 Mossie model, in specifc the exhaust/flame dampeners for night flying.
As for the Spit16, the issues with its ability to dive as well as it does, roll rate, and acceleration have all been addressed as well. I'll pull out my hard Spitfire sources in the morning... but a quick search will prove fruitful. :aok
btw... I didnt claim to be "l337" as you say... just observant and annoyed at the lack of the things I already mentoined.
-
This is just a hunch, but I think there was a post by someone which gave a good reason for the exhaust shrouds to be left on our mossie. Might have been Karnak, you'll have to dig it up yourself. If you weren't such a (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3264/3232979934_0379186ce1_o.gif) he'd probably be glad to spill all the beans at your request.
-
This is just a hunch, but I think there was a post by someone which gave a good reason for the exhaust shrouds to be left on our mossie. Might have been Karnak, you'll have to dig it up yourself. If you weren't such a (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3264/3232979934_0379186ce1_o.gif) he'd probably be glad to spill all the beans at your request.
Karnak was one of those that provided evidence against the baffles. ;) Less than %20 of the FB MkIV were used with the baffles.
-
That post exists, I just don't remember any more about it. It was at least 3 years ago.
-
That post exists, I just don't remember any more about it. It was at least 3 years ago.
Do a search for "exhaust shroud"... find the post titled "Unleash the Mossie". Read that first, then read the other obvious threads. LOTS of viable and printed info available for HTC to conclude that the baffles/shrouds should be removed so the Mossie Mk6 can gain its 5-15mph it shoudl already have.
-
Karnak was one of those that provided evidence against the baffles. ;) Less than %20 of the FB MkIV were used with the baffles.
Why do you care if it has baffles or not? I can show you 100's of different items that the book says don't go on an aircraft but were in fact actually found on the aircraft in numerous cases.
The problem with people like you, is that you are nit pickers that direct your energies towards the mundane and foolish. Worrying whether an aircraft has a flame arrestor equipped or not is an example of nit picking something mundane. It's about the same as the imbeciles that argue over the correct shades of luftwaffe paint.
You want to figure something out? Dig up info for new aircraft to be flight modeled as accurately as possible.
-
Loon, I read those threads already. Prolly wore the avatar for a while. Flew the mossie a bunch when they fixed the stall, which was another change we asked for and got. Of course you wouldn't mention that since you're too busy finding excuses to (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3264/3232979934_0379186ce1_o.gif)
And there was definitely a mitigating fact somewhere near the end of all the mossie discussions, which made it kinda moot whether it got shrouds or not. That fact itself might have been arguable, but it was definitely a fact. I just don't remember what it was.
-
Keep swinging because you're both missing.
The baffles/shrouds reduce the Mossie's speed by 5 to 15 mph depending on alt. At 8k and 15k alt, another 15mph would give it the long range extending ability to outrun enough fighters that can surrently catch it, WEP or no WEP, in level flight.
btw... I'm hardly a nit-picker when it comes to this sim/game as I fully understand the monumentous tasks of getting things %100 right when the real deal is not available to compare to. However, I will speak up on items that have been proven to be inaccurate and HTC doesnt comment on. It is you two that came looking for a fight, not I.
Keep swinging. Maybe someday you'll get close. ;)
-
If someone's missing it's you. Those threads and what they point out are old news, we knew about em already.
-
However, I will speak up on items that have been proven to be inaccurate and HTC doesnt comment on.
LOL now if you'd just shut up about things you're "proven to be inaccurate" all would be good. :aok
-
What you are missing loon is that some aircraft WERE equipped, so who gives a flying horizontal mambo if the one is equipped with them in game.
They are on there, deal with it.
-
Totally off-topic Puck, but I got so bored that I typed your location into my GPS.
Location: 68°09'37.79"N 33°27'45.41E
I'm inclined to call BS. :D
OK, continue with the argument.
-
Totally off-topic Puck, but I got so bored that I typed your location into my GPS.
Location: 68°09'37.79"N 33°27'45.41E
I'm inclined to call BS. :D
Are you trying to suggest I'm not REALLY stationed at a Backfire base on the Kola peninsula?
-
Are you trying to suggest I'm not REALLY stationed at a Backfire base on the Kola peninsula?
I said inclined. I didn't say it wasn't possible. :D Geez, and I gripe about the weather here.
-
What you are missing loon is that some aircraft WERE equipped, so who gives a flying horizontal mambo if the one is equipped with them in game.
They are on there, deal with it.
If this is what you're closing argument is, then you completely missed the point. HTC has modified models before that were a minority in the the read deal but evident in AH2, so for the Mossie to continue to have the baffles when less than %20 of them had the baffels in the real deal, I think the arguement of slanted towards remvioing them vs keeping them especially if HTC is striving for realsim.
-
All I heard from the people who know (Dale, actually, a few cons ago) is it's a mixture of lookup tables and calculations. No, it's not X-Plane; Austin would very likely curl up and die in a furball trying to do all that math. AH is also geared to lower end systems. As for what they calculate and what they look up? I have no idea...I didn't ask.
The famous picture showing calculation points on the Corsair made me wonder, looks similar to the way I understand X-Plane to work.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but your system isn't calculating anything but YOUR plane's movement in the furball right?
-
If this is what you're closing argument is, then you completely missed the point. HTC has modified models before that were a minority in the the read deal but evident in AH2, so for the Mossie to continue to have the baffles when less than %20 of them had the baffels in the real deal, I think the arguement of slanted towards remvioing them vs keeping them especially if HTC is striving for realsim.
Do you really think the time wasted to "remove" them is worth it mr. nitpicker? If so, then you have done nothing more than prove my point...
Seriously, you are worse than arguing with other nitpickers that try to tell me that CAD2 hardware never was in WW2 aircraft. It was, and in heavy use as early 1942. BTW, if you ever want to get anal about an airframe... we do when we restore one to it's original configuration as built during WW2. We deal with your type all the time trying to tell us we are wrong. It really gets annoying having to hear the rants of amateurs.
-
And that's the problem, Loon, not whether the mossie deserves that mod or whether it would be better off; which it probably would. The absurd thing is insistence on htc not giving a rat's, and incessantly ranting about everything they're supposedly doing wrong. That they "never reply", "never adress issues", yadda yadda. If you really want to convince anyone that they are such and such, take a trip to their office in person, and report back. Until you do, can it.
-
If this is what you're closing argument is, then you completely missed the point. HTC has modified models before that were a minority in the the read deal but evident in AH2, so for the Mossie to continue to have the baffles when less than %20 of them had the baffels in the real deal, I think the arguement of slanted towards remvioing them vs keeping them especially if HTC is striving for realsim.
Your entire argument is based NOT on a quest for realism, but simply that YOU think it would be better (i.e. you want the Mossie to perform better than it does) . You love to throw the word REALISM around, when all you are speaking about is WHICH particular airplane to model, and nothing about realism.
HiTech
-
Your entire argument is based NOT on a quest for realism, but simply that YOU think it would be better (i.e. you want the Mossie to perform better than it does) . You love to throw the word REALISM around, when all you are speaking about is WHICH particular airplane to model, and nothing about realism.
HiTech
And that, Ladies and Gents, is the end of the argument!
P.S [Hijack] - Hitech, how come you let Moot an dKrusty and various others get above you in member status? Their Plutonium, your platinum? Bump their a***s back down to platinum! :P
-
P.S [Hijack] - Hitech, how come you let Moot an dKrusty and various others get above you in member status? Their Plutonium, your platinum? Bump their a***s back down to platinum! :P
Because wise men speak only when the have something useful to say. :devil
HiTech
-
Because wise men speak only when the have something useful to say. :devil
HiTech
psss wise man, you forgot the "y". :D
-
Because wise men speak only when the have something useful to say. :devil
HiTech
AWSOME MAN! Thank you! I was just wondering!
-
Your entire argument is based NOT on a quest for realism, but simply that YOU think it would be better (i.e. you want the Mossie to perform better than it does) . You love to throw the word REALISM around, when all you are speaking about is WHICH particular airplane to model, and nothing about realism.
HiTech
With all due respect, my argument is not based on making a particular plane better but rather to get the model that was used overwhelmingly vs the others available to the playing field. I used the Mossie as my example because there are countless threads with documents showing that our current model was in the minority (less than 1 in 5 FB Mk6 has baffles), and yet nothing has been addressed. Can you comment on why what would otherwis seem as a simple fix has not been acknowledged???
btw... it is good of you to pop your head in here. I, amongst others, hope to see it more often especially on isses such as these. ;) :salute
-
From Bohdi:
Do you really think the time wasted to "remove" them is worth it mr. nitpicker? If so, then you have done nothing more than prove my point...
Seriously, you are worse than arguing with other nitpickers that try to tell me that CAD2 hardware never was in WW2 aircraft. It was, and in heavy use as early 1942. BTW, if you ever want to get anal about an airframe... we do when we restore one to it's original configuration as built during WW2. We deal with your type all the time trying to tell us we are wrong. It really gets annoying having to hear the rants of amateurs.
My reply-
Lets put it this way: they’ve spent more time on far more minuscule things that made far less impact on an aircraft than allowing it to have 5-15mph more speed. Yes, it is worth their time and I’m sure far more agree with me than not.
Secondly, what the Hell are you bringing up CAD2/airframe/restoration for what reason??? That has to do with what this thread is all about because why??? Focus Jr, focus.
You’ve just proven yourself, again, to be an immature Jr. that is good at name-calling and looking for a fight.
From Moot:
And that's the problem, Loon, not whether the mossie deserves that mod or whether it would be better off; which it probably would. The absurd thing is insistence on htc not giving a rat's, and incessantly ranting about everything they're supposedly doing wrong. That they "never reply", "never adress issues", yadda yadda. If you really want to convince anyone that they are such and such, take a trip to their office in person, and report back. Until you do, can it.
My reply-
*sigh* I don’t “incessantly rant about everything they do is wrong”, that is quite absurd and to the contrary. Until HTC’s direct reply here I don’t recall him ever getting his hands dirty in a thread explaining the nuts-n-bolts (not that he did here, he just piped up to put a clamp on me and did nothing to alleviate the issue at hand). If there is a thread where HTC said “what, why, how, etc”, please link me to it. And as far as “taking a trip to their office”, while I've not ever been there I’ve actually offered to invest in their company (take it for what is worth, I guess). So you “can it”.
-
Hi
Very interesting topic
How this 'Look-up table' method for the flight sim's, is actually working? The Google give just very generic answers.
What kind of look-up tables there are (or should be), for the 'different flight envelopes'? Flight envelopes like spin, snap-spin or flat-spin / invert with different stability conditions?
I'm very curious, how the plane specific 'around the stalls' flight envelopes are/could/should modeled.
Thanks
-
smokingloon, I used the Cad2 reference to point out that like HT said, you are nothing more than a nitpicker that has no basis complaining about the flipping baffles.
You're a waste of effort.
-
smokingloon, I used the Cad2 reference to point out that like HT said, you are nothing more than a nitpicker that has no basis complaining about the flipping baffles.
You're a waste of effort.
Quite hypocritical. Quite.
-
I used the Cad2 reference
What the heck is a CAD2, and why were they used? Cadmium? Did they have thermal neutron problems back then? I know nothing about air frames, though if you ever get settled I'd sure like to come down and get educated.
---
Lookup tables are an alternative to calculation.
In a totally hypothetical example, let's say you're flying airplane x at speed y. I can go look in a table with x on one axis and y on the other and say "the wings are generating lift z". It's an approximation, and does not take into effect temperature, humidity, blah blah blah, but it's staggeringly fast and close enough for the task at hand.
The upside is the speed, the down side is the approximation. The more you calculate the more accurate the result, but the longer it takes. I have no idea what HTC looks up and what he calculates, but they have found a balance between speed and accuracy that's hard to fault.
-
Quite hypocritical. Quite.
How is it hypocritical to compare you t someone arguing over the different colors of the cadmium coating on hardware? It is nitpicking at it's worst, and a downright waste of HTC's time and effort.
-
What the heck is a CAD2, and why were they used? Cadmium? Did they have thermal neutron problems back then? I know nothing about air frames, though if you ever get settled I'd sure like to come down and get educated.
---
Lookup tables are an alternative to calculation.
In a totally hypothetical example, let's say you're flying airplane x at speed y. I can go look in a table with x on one axis and y on the other and say "the wings are generating lift z". It's an approximation, and does not take into effect temperature, humidity, blah blah blah, but it's staggeringly fast and close enough for the task at hand.
The upside is the speed, the down side is the approximation. The more you calculate the more accurate the result, but the longer it takes. I have no idea what HTC looks up and what he calculates, but they have found a balance between speed and accuracy that's hard to fault.
It's the coloring of the cadmium on hardware. Quite a few krusty like experts have tried to tell us that CAD2 (gold) was not used on ww2 aircraft. We routinely open airframes that have not been touched since they were abandoned in WW2. We find stuff the stuff all the time.
-
"while I've not ever been there I’ve actually offered to invest in their company (take it for what is worth, I guess). So you “can it”. "
IOW you've got no first hand idea of what HTC's about (HT has to tell you so himself), but you're willing to invest (everyone already has, 15$ a month and some of us one or more thousand so far).. something tells me that's only for more rights to tell the devs how to do their job. There is no "issue" with keeping the FM recipe secret. There's plenty of clues in the archives to give you a pretty good idea of how they go about modeling the planes.
It's suggested that you take a trip to grapevine because apparently you can't grasp the facts by only reading this forum.
-
It's the coloring of the cadmium on hardware. Quite a few krusty like experts have tried to tell us that CAD2 (gold) was not used on ww2 aircraft. We routinely open airframes that have not been touched since they were abandoned in WW2. We find stuff the stuff all the time.
Ah. People obsess over the plating on fasteners in the airframe? I have obviously lived a sheltered life. I just assumed those who do that here have none and act accordingly.
Wasn't this thread about how new aircraft are modeled, not what's wrong with $MyAircraft?
-
"while I've not ever been there I’ve actually offered to invest in their company (take it for what is worth, I guess). So you “can it”. "
IOW you've got no first hand idea of what HTC's about (HT has to tell you so himself), but you're willing to invest (everyone already has, 15$ a month and some of us one or more thousand so far).. something tells me that's only for more rights to tell the devs how to do their job. There is no "issue" with keeping the FM recipe secret. There's plenty of clues in the archives to give you a pretty good idea of how they go about modeling the planes.
It's suggested that you take a trip to grapevine because apparently you can't grasp the facts by only reading this forum.
"IOW"... you have first hand knowledge? You've been there in that office and worked on their coding and done the research? No? Then you're being quite the hypocrite yourself. Dont claim to be any more knowledgable regarding the daily business activites of HTC than I, because unless you've been there and done with with HTC... yeah... thats right... you "can it". Your higher than mighty attitude is getting the better of yourself.
Obviously you dont know what the term "investment" means either. Paying your $15/month fee is not investing, it is paying for their service. I'm speaking about **investing** money into their company, you know, give them capital to work with. Give them X amount of dollars and over time X + Y amount of dollars return. Stop and think what one or two more full time coders could do for AH2. Stop and think how much more additions, improvements, and corrections could be made. That is what I am talking about when I say "investing". Also, something tells me your post count or the length of time you've been playing means jack squat (actually, HTC already alluded that post counts mean nothing ;) ). The minute you stop paying is the minute you mean nothing and that goes for all of us, and even when you're paying your voice is no louder than anyone elses. HTC/AH2 is a business and the color of money is all the same.
I've got a grasp on facts and reality that far outreach your capability. Believe it.
btw... are we going to hear HTC's response to my question??? :pray
-
I'm no hypocrit.. You could say I've had the same pov as you a long time ago. I'm gonna quit here cause your conversation is pointless. Far outreach my capability huh... LOL
Good luck convincing HTC they're doing it wrong.
<S>
edit- Actualy read your post instead of skipping it on the assumption it's more clueless arrogant garbage.. You're basicaly saying you want to buy influence with HTC, to steer their development differently from what it is now?
Give them X amount of dollars and over time X + Y amount of dollars return. Stop and think what one or two more full time coders could do for AH2. Stop and think how much more additions, improvements, and corrections could be made. That is what I am talking about when I say "investing".
No poop.. You think you're the first one to come up with this? And suggest it to them?
And high and mighty? Mate.. I'm just calling it exactly like I see it. 10 years following the game update after update and comment after comment from the devs, and hearing the feedback pretty much straight from the horse's mouth from the Cons is enough to get at least as much perspective as a lot of us have, unless you're deaf and blind. It's got nothing to do with chest thumping, which no one else but you brought into this. Post counts? What are you smoking? You pay more attention to it than I do. You really need a clue.. Like I said.. Quit yappin about being right and put your money where your mouth is. Stop posting on the forum and do it, call em up and see if your money is worth so much more than their vision of what the game and development rationale ought to be. Till then..
-
Im sorry if this is between Moot, loon and Bhodi but im going to but in here.
Loon. I know nothing baout how HT goes about coding. Very few, if anyone on these boards know how they go about creating it. If your complaining about the baffles on the mossi, then start complaining about the 3 gun LA, the fact we got a Stuka D instead of a G or B, that we haven't got the HE 111 etc. If you go into detail, there is COUNTLESS things one could nitpick at. Whats the point? Whats it going to achieve? All its going to do is ruin your fun in game, which by the sounds of it, is non existant for you. HT has said that your nitpicking (Coming back to you Hitech sir), so why dont you just let it go. Enjoy the game for what it is! I dont buy a game, then expect to be able to complain about it and recreate it due to one small fact, which is historically correct! I would say let it go, because at the minute your looking like a 5 year old, who's throwing a tantrum in a supermarket, and just making your self seem less of a man.
Ok, back to Hitech. You stated that 'Wise men speak only when they have something useful to say'. Now Ive got a lower post count than you, does that make me wiser? :P :D
p.s Please dont ban me! :pray
-
Im sorry if this is between Moot, loon and Bhodi but im going to but in here.
Loon. I know nothing baout how HT goes about coding. Very few, if anyone on these boards know how they go about creating it. If your complaining about the baffles on the mossi, then start complaining about the 3 gun LA, the fact we got a Stuka D instead of a G or B, that we haven't got the HE 111 etc. If you go into detail, there is COUNTLESS things one could nitpick at. Whats the point? Whats it going to achieve? All its going to do is ruin your fun in game, which by the sounds of it, is non existant for you. HT has said that your nitpicking (Coming back to you Hitech sir), so why dont you just let it go. Enjoy the game for what it is! I dont buy a game, then expect to be able to complain about it and recreate it due to one small fact, which is historically correct! I would say let it go, because at the minute your looking like a 5 year old, who's throwing a tantrum in a supermarket, and just making your self seem less of a man.
Ok, back to Hitech. You stated that 'Wise men speak only when they have something useful to say'. Now Ive got a lower post count than you, does that make me wiser? :P :D
p.s Please dont ban me! :pray
Quite the contrary... I enjoy the heck out of this sim/game. I wouldnt be here in this forum or playing the game as much as I do if I didnt. For what it is worth, I'd rather lose and have fun than win and not have fun. I have said repeatedly that I appreciate the efforts of the HTC's sim/game as there isnt anything else like it (Warbirds evidently used to be similar but AH2 has now extended its lead???). I am not guilty of "nit-picking" any more than anyone else, but my desire to have things accurately represented for on a multitude of objects when the fixes have been well presented and are elementary according to the coders.
If you would have read my post, I made a reference to selecting the Mossie as an example because of the numerous threads and the evidence presented in those threads that have presented facts that the current AH2 FB Mk6 was quite in the minority (again, only 1/5 of the FB Mk6 had baffles) and used for night or low light missions. I said specifically that there were many other aicraft that had controversial/questionable modeling but simply chose the Mossie to mention.
**Notice how HTC poked his head in to say I'm "nit-picking" but offered no explanation to a simple question???** So many threads like this would be done and over with on page 1 if someone from HTC would simple step in and answer with a sentence or two explaining HTC's postion. Instead, we have page after page of "you're a nit picker/no I'm not". No one with any authority and true knowledge on the matter has offered an explanation as to why, and those who have tried have done nothing but proven they know nothing but how to sling mud, call names, and proven themselves "not in the know".
-
So is the mossie with flame dampers properly modeled or not?
Note: I'm not asking if need an additional ac modeled without is needed. We have a wish list for that.
-
So is the mossie with flame dampers properly modeled or not?
Note: I'm not asking if need an additional ac modeled without is needed. We have a wish list for that.
Well as far as I can tell, yes.
On the other hand though, a faster MK6 without the flame dampers, is just as, or probably even more "legit" as the one we have now.
The question is rather what are arguments for not having a MK6 without flame dampers (for now).
I can see for example, that making the needed changes in the 3D model would be quite a waste of time on an actually already outdated model.
However, when the Mossie is up for the 3D update, things may look different then.
-
On the subject of tables. They are used when an equeations does not represent the system very well. The down side of them is not inacuracy, but wrather the time it takes to create them by hand.
As an example, we use a table for air density. It has data points every 500 ft. So the only error is the difference of a linier interpalation between the 2 points and what the real density is, I.E. the error is almost non existance. we do the same with tempature at altitude.
The tables we use are not sweeping performance tables but simply one data point of an equation.
Tables are typicly more precise than equations, because they can account for real world testing , where as an equation can just be an aproximation.
The choice of which to use is not a philisofical one, or a choice of which is more acurate, but which is better in each situation.
HiTech
-
On the subject of tables. They are used when an equeations does not represent the system very well. The down side of them is not inacuracy, but wrather the time it takes to create them by hand.
As an example, we use a table for air density. It has data points every 500 ft. So the only error is the difference of a linier interpalation between the 2 points and what the real density is, I.E. the error is almost non existance. we do the same with tempature at altitude.
The tables we use are not sweeping performance tables but simply one data point of an equation.
Tables are typicly more precise than equations, because they can account for real world testing , where as an equation can just be an aproximation.
The choice of which to use is not a philisofical one, or a choice of which is more acurate, but which is better in each situation.
HiTech
Thank you for your very valuable feedback.
The reason why I'm asking this, is I stated to code my own hobby 'flight dynamics model' about 6 months ago, basically just to refresh my math skills.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,254612.0.html
-
How is the Density Altitude calculated in the game? Is it a standard day? Based on a standard day for Density Altitude calculation the ME262 would have a Combat Ceiling of over 39000 feet, however, when climbing a 262 in Aces High you lose the ability to climb at 500ft per min around 30,000
-
Hitech's spelling never dissapionets. ;)
-
Hitech's spelling never dissapionets. ;)
I am very happy to bring a smile to your face.
HiTech
-
Hitech's spelling never dissapionets. ;)
You ever think that maybe his brain and fingers communicate @ different baud rates? Or maybe he just lost UDP ;)