Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Pudgie on December 12, 2009, 01:24:42 PM
-
Hi Hitech,
I have always wondered what was the trigger behind the head shift modelling in-game. I have noticed when I roll either direction the head position would shift opposite the direction of the roll to a determined distance & return to "normal" after a determined amount of time. Same regimen w/ regards to pitch.
This looks like IMHO that you're simulating the effects of stick forces necessary to deflect the control surfaces to the "pilot" thru the leverage of a typical WWII control stick. Is this right?
The question I am getting to is this.
In order to actually model the operation of the control surfaces within the FM in-game, you would need to use a number to represent a "stick force" that can be applied so that the math would work. If then the head shift is generated only by the control stick's distance from "neutral" & not take into account the stick force necessary vs available stick force (pilot strength applied to same leverage point-the control stick) to achieve the amount of deflection based off the stated in-game stick force number then would this be giving a head shift that may not be reflective of the actual trigger that in RL would have created the action?
I am saying this because I have noticed that the head shift action in-game would show up on a roll of less than 5-6 deg/sec. From looking at a typical stick force control curve of, say a P-51 (I use this plane cause on another BBS during a debate similar to this post a poster put 1 up) & looking at the typical WWII pilot physical conditioning concerning strength--part of pilot selection process--I don't think the pilot's head would be shifting at all unless the airplane is at or above 75-80% of max top speed--not accounting for pilot fatigue.
I myself would love to have this properly modelled in-game. And is the typical WWII plane design similar enough to allow a typical result to be used across all FM's?
Is this a viable proposition?
:salute
-
Hi Moderator,
I just noticed that there is a seperate forum on the BBS for this kind of post that is more appropriate.
Please move this post to that forum.
Sorry for the mix up.
I'll see to it that this won't happen from me again.
:salute
-
Newton
-
Newton
This.
It's not the act of moving the stick that's causing the "head shift," it's Newton's law that "each and every action has and equal and opposite reaction." This means as the plane rolls right, your head, which has momentum, will want to stay where it is. Therefore it will "shift" the opposite direction of the roll.
-
It's not the act of moving the stick that's causing the "head shift," it's Newton's law that "each and every action has and equal and opposite reaction." This means as the plane rolls right, your head, which has momentum, will want to stay where it is. Therefore it will "shift" the opposite direction of the roll.
Been on vacation, back now.
On the control stick issue, this IS 1 area where Newton's law (that you quoted) will come into effect as the pilot's body (object #2) will be applying a force to counter an opposing force created by the airflow being deflected across the control surfaces of the airplane (object #1). Simple leveraging can & will shift the pilot's body/head depending upon the amount of stick force necessary to properly deflect the control surfaces within a certain amount of time desired to initiate & hold said deflection.
As for the airplane during the roll:
This is Newton's law applied across an object #2 (pilot's body/head) thru/within another object #1 (airplane). When in straight & level flight momentum is applied EQUAL to both objects, thus object #2 (pilot's body/head) is considered NEUTRAL within object #1 (airplane). When object #1 (airplane) is rolled, the SPEED (degree per second) of the roll of object #1 (airplane) has to accelerate FASTER (generate more momentum) than the momentum imparted to object #2 (the pilot's body/head) during the roll for the "shift" to occur to object #2 (pilot's body/head) & this "shift" will remain until either 1.) the momentum of object #1 is SLOWED to match the momentum of object #2 or 2.) the momentum of object #2 is ACCELERATED to match the momentum of object #1 bringing both object's momentum back to NEUTRAL (realign both object's momentum--pilot's body/head moves back to center of airplane). We both KNOW it ain't case #2 (most of the time) that causes realignment. The pilot's body/head is NOT shifting due to opposite momentum (as you have implied in your statement) but is simply "shifting off-center axis" of airplane's vector due to an IMBALANCE of momentum applied between the 2 along the SAME axis of rotation (1 object rotating faster around the same axis than the other object that is located on the same axis).
It takes a fairly large deflection of the control surfaces to create the kind of momentum IMBALANCE to create a head shift during a roll (looking at this from a position of physics) as opposed to the physics generated from moving the control stick to deflect the control surfaces to generate said roll. Ever wondered WHY WWII German cockpits were so NARROW at the shoulder position? Guess what they were trying to control & why German planes tended to out roll all others & why their control sticks were so tall relative to others?
My post is not to question the dynamics in general (I don't question this) but to question the PROPER APPLICATION of the dynamics in-game & the only folks that can answer this post are the designers of the game, namely Hitech (thus why this post was originally directed to him). Since Hitech has actual flying experience as a pilot (mine comes from travelling in airliners as a passenger--which exhibits the same physics as described above BTW w/ the exception of the forces concerning a control stick), he can give better insight.
If Hitech chooses not to reply that is his perogative. Not gonna stop me from flying AHII.
Would like to see the head shift created from the proper physics being applied instead of using a distance of stick movement to "actuate" the movement alone.
My 2 cents.
:salute
-
The head shift is for the Lateral "G" forces that are applied to the pilot when turning, climbing, accelerating, or, decelerating. It is not the force being applied to the stick. You can not take the expierience of riding in the back of a 737, and compare it to flying combat, or areobatics. In fact the stick forces applied to MOST of the WW2 planes were very light.
-
This.
It's not the act of moving the stick that's causing the "head shift," it's Newton's law that "each and every action has and equal and opposite reaction." This means as the plane rolls right, your head, which has momentum, will want to stay where it is. Therefore it will "shift" the opposite direction of the roll.
Agreed. However, the way it is modeled now, the action/reaction relation seems out of whack. Even the smoothest banking will result in a jerky head movement - like you get punched in the face. OTOH a rapid, full deflection does not add much extra movement compared to that. A more linear control/head movement would be desireable.
-
You want bladder disfuntion added in high G maneuvers too?
-
In fact the stick forces applied to MOST of the WW2 planes were very light.
Not really. The Mustang has stiff ailerons at speed. The ailerons on the B-17 needs two hands to move them quickly. The elevator on the B-24 is as good as a Nautilas machine for upper arm work. <G>
As a pilot when flying the airplane I've never noticed my head moving as it does in AH. As a passenger yes...it's like riding in a car -- as a driver you don't get thrown around a lot but when shotgun your head gets whipped around a lot.
Take a look at these videos (http://www.dalefalk.com/Movies) to get an idea how much you move when doing acro. In both the T-6 and Mustang videos there are cameras facing the pilots.
-
In game I believe they code the movement to help offset the fact we have no real seat-of-the-pants feel in the aircraft. Also in game we are all FBW.