Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Pyro on June 20, 2001, 11:58:00 PM
-
I've had a number of issues I've need to address for awhile and I'm trying to get them in now before the next release. Only in the order I remember them, they are:
N1K2- sorry but before I discuss this I must digress. I am not generally anal about plane designations or nicknames. It's not important to me that this plane be referred to as an N1K2-J or Shiden-kai. N1K, N1K2, George, Shiden, it's all understood I'll interchange them whenever. However, I must admit a certain irritation with the moniker "Niki". I think this was born in AW which I presume had an N1K1-J and that must have been translated to "Niki" in some sort of pig-133t fashion. I really despise that term for some reason. It's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. It actually makes me cringe at times. I don't know why this is, it's not something obvious like I knew someone named Nikki that I couldn't stand. Now I'm no fool. I wouldn't divulge this information under the naive presumption that people will stop referring to it by that infernal name. I know the opposite is true. But that's not my purpose, for I am just venting. I'm immune to this irritation here because it's like the constant ringing in my ears. I don't notice it. Niki reads N1K1 to me and I just translate that to mean N1K2 on a subconscious level. When I hear it called "Niki" in person, that's when it's irritating to me. Might as well replace that word with a fart and it would be about the same to me. Dale refers to it that way all the time to me, but he's the only one I have to hear it from. Call it what you want though, it won't make my day or ruin it either way.
Digression aside- there are some issues with N1K2 flight modeling that require some further work and changes.
F4U- The -1C is definately underweight. There's some other performance issues that need to be looked at as well, but the weight issue is a known factor and will finally be fixed.
P-47D-11 is underweight and that will be changed. A prop change is not planned at this point as I really don't want to do 8 variants of the P-47.
Flaps- there's some issues with flaps that needs to be looked into. Results and possible action pending further investigation.
Stalls- similar to flaps but more aircraft specific.
Some stuff is cut and dry, other stuff isn't. So keep in mind that there is no outcome until there is an outcome.
-
Heya pyro, what do you think about putting/using X-planes Blade Element Theory for the way AH determines Flight characteristics.? :D I think if you guys havnt already checked it out (x-plane) that is, you should :D www.x-plane.com (http://www.x-plane.com)
Now dont get me wrong, by me suggesting this, I am not putting down Aces, I just feel that realtime - on the fly flight characteristcs would alleviate alot of the data table stuff.
I also guess that this would require drastic change to the current source code also.. so Its understood why it wouldnt be implemented.
Anyway, check it out.. and please dont Flame me for this. thanx...
-DeeZ out :p
-
Great stuff Pyro!Looking forward to next patch..Now about damage modeling..Any chance we might get engine overheat/damage when you run into the red for too long?<S!>
-
Not to flame you, but I have no idea what you're talking about and suspect you don't either. This is not the first time I've seen you make this assertion about our flight model and yet I have no idea where you come up with this or why you would think it. You just assert it as factual. What is the basis of your statement?
-
hey pyro nice work looking forward to it
you still have the #1 flight model in the industry :)
<S>
-
Can we call em Nikz then?? or niks :p
-
Cool news! Any idea on whether or not you'll be modeling the automatic flap system of the George and getting rid of the manual control of them?
SOB
BTW...Nice rant! :)
-
Why do i get this strange urge to type "Niki" over and over again?
:D
Hamish!
P.S. Sounds great, can't wait for it!
-
Pyro, this is the most hopeful post I've seen in months. Not because plane A or plane B are going to be resived, but just because this proves there is some kind of "fine-tuning" politic. And IMO, fine-tuning what we already have is 10 times more important than 10 new planes.
This post is also great because Pyro answered directly to someone that proposed something related directly to the FM in general. This kind of answers (aside of the precission used) are, IMO, really important to spread some light over more or less popular demands.
Having 1000 planes and 2000 customers whining about them with no answer is really a product-hurting situation. Having only 50 planes and having the customers "convinced" they are right modeled is, IMO, the way to go.
Using 10 mins a day to answer the customer concerns about FM/GM is, for sure, a great investment.
-
Digression aside- there are some issues with N1K2 flight modeling that require some further work and changes.
LOL
F4U- The -1C is definately underweight. There's some other performance issues that need to be looked at as well, but the weight issue is a known factor and will finally be fixed.
LOL squared
you still have the #1 flight model in the industry
Which flight model? The 1.03 FM? The 1.04 FM? The 1.08FM? The 1.10FM?
Sounds like AH is aiming to have the #1, #2, #3, #4 & #5 flight model in the industry :)
-
Please look into rollrates, particularly 190s and Spits.
And fix the 109 (if it somehow needs to be fixed ;)).
-
Reason the N1K2 (was Ilong time since I wrote that) Is being refered to Niki is (IMO) Pure speed. When you're in the middle of a fight and wanna say a N1K2 is inbound, it's alot faster tp type Niki, N, I, K are very close to eachother on the keyboard while N, 1, K and 2 a far away, takes more time to move your hand (I have short fingers and small hands, I can't reach it if I don't move the hand). This is the only reason I type Niki, and it's allways been my belife that it's for speed purpose.
Anything new about 190 A's 1 hit engine kill? :)
-
Does this mean that the early F4U-1 might get done this version??
-
Jekyll, if ya severed the account why not sever the link to here too? The WW2O masses on the Playnet boards await your wit and superior intellect! ;)
Thanks for the news Pyro!
Westy
-
All I can say is... WOOOT! This post is great. Thank you Pyro for coming out and telling us this info. I wonder if you know how much this means to certain ones of us? :)
xBAT
-
Well Westy I think Jekyll is just enjoying rubbing it in since the WW2OL FM debuted with absolutely no flaws.
After all, none of those planes retain E indefinitely, none climb better than their weights and "book rate" of climb would indicate and Hoof hasn't suggested as yet that he's going to revamp the original flight model's rudder effectiveness and drag calculations.
Oh yeah, the gunnery is probably like " shooting a rifle whilst jogging" or some such likely analogy.
So, he's just so happy now he has to come back here. There's nothing worth discussing over on those other boards. :)
It's heaven for the "greater difficulty = more realistic" book-reading experts. :D They all agree with each other, so it's paradise.
"And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and
he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down
yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me,
sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy."
From "Alice's Restaurant" by Arlo Guthrie.
Reminds me of the harder = real-er guys. They're all jumping up and down and agreeing with each other. Whether they know what they're talking about or not. :)
[ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Pyro,... Have you tried x-plane yet? Please do then post what you feel about it.
I am in no way trying to put down aces, I just feel and know from flight experience that the way aces represents flight characteristics such as stalls or the physical interaction of airflow over an aircraft, x comes out on top.
I know its kinda like comparing apples and oranges in some respects due to the differing goals of X and Aces. Also please do not be so quick to think that I am bashing Aces or feel that I might not have a place in asking/suggesting something.
If you have read/heard about my posts of Flight model and the level of Fidelity Aces uses copared to that of X, Then please.. I strongly urge you to tell me what you Feel X has or hasn't over Aces. Thanks - Deez
-
um ok.
-
Hello friends, Hello Pyro:
was the slats of the 109 modeled finally?
Los Slats del 109 van a se modelados?
Saludos
supongo :D
-
Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
If you have read/heard about my posts of Flight model and the level of Fidelity Aces uses copared to that of X, Then please.. I strongly urge you to tell me what you Feel X has or hasn't over Aces.
You don't know what Aces High models or doesn't model and how it models... you are simply talking out of your tail pipe.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Pyro:
Digression aside- there are some issues with N1K2 flight modeling that require some further work and changes.
F4U- The -1C is definately underweight. There's some other performance issues that need to be looked at as well, but the weight issue is a known factor and will finally be fixed.
P-47D-11 is underweight and that will be changed. A prop change is not planned at this point as I really don't want to do 8 variants of the P-47.
Flaps- there's some issues with flaps that needs to be looked into. Results and possible action pending further investigation.
Stalls- similar to flaps but more aircraft specific.
Some stuff is cut and dry, other stuff isn't. So keep in mind that there is no outcome until there is an outcome.
Neat! I cannot help but admire some one who seeks to continually improve his product.
Tilt
-
Pyro thank you for finally doing this post.
-
Quote:You don't know what Aces High models or doesn't model and how it models... you are simply talking out of your tail pipe.
-SW
Gee your ignorance is your own personal bliss? Its funny how you jump on the bashing bandwagon. Pretty original :rolleyes:
-
Toad I agree 100% and doing my damndest not to add to what you said. And for me it's pretty damned hard not to add my .02 (re:WWII, realism, etc etc) :D
And I have to agree whole HEARTEDLY with Tilt. HTC's willingness to comb through thier data, talk and listne to thier customers and try to improve the sim constantly is a significant part of the "whole" picture thing I'd always talked about.
Westy
-
Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
Gee your ignorance is your own personal bliss? Its funny how you jump on the bashing bandwagon. Pretty original :rolleyes:
My ignorance, so I guess you somehow know what HTC models and what they don't?
You must be the most (un)intelligent person in the world.
"It feels, and I think, therefore it must be"
-SW
-
Westy, my intent is certainly not to flame or discredit WW2OL.
I hope they make it; WW2 aviation is "my thing" and I'm "for" anyone trying to do it on a PC.
I'm just pointing out that, so far, NO ONE has got it right the first time out. Every such program undergoes continual revision, at least it does if the programmers are honest. Hoof is working on that stuff and anyone truly interested already knows that.
HTC continues to improve. Gotta love it, both cases.
Modeling flight (and particularly air combat) on a PC is a d*mnably difficult task. I salute all those who take a shot at it.
-
SWulf it is very sad that you have such a close minded look at things. I have flown full acro in a wwii/50's naval trainer and X-plane simulates to the best of what I have ever seen on a 2d PC screen. Have you?
But take note that not anywhere in this post have I bashed aces, You on the other hand make a quick jump to express your own ingnorant/single focus rant about how I know nothing. It is your personal attack on me and your bashing of another program that is really lame.
I pity you, I wonder how you view other things in life that you are not familiar with.
Oh well feel what you wish, perhaps it will take time for you to understand what a suggestion/idea is.
-Deez out...
-
SWulf it is very sad that you have such a close minded look at things. I have flown full acro in a wwii/50's naval trainer <blah><blah><blah>. Have you?
HiTech has. In a P-51. Have you flown in a P-51? I guess by your "I've flown in a plane so I'm more qualified to pronounce myself an expert" logic HT technically kicks your ass.
AKDejaVu
-
BTW... thanks for the update Pyro.
AKDejaVu
-
Ak.. I think you missed it.. Right over your head I guess. eh? you and SW know each other? :)
-
Originally posted by Pyro:
N1K2- ...However, I must admit a certain irritation with the moniker "Niki".
Does Niktu work better??
:D :D :D
MiG
-
Ummm... didn't go over my head at all. Maybe you are just completely oblivious to what you are saying. Let me put it into words that most can understand:
"HTC, I know alot about flying and think your game doesn't model it as well as x-pilot. Can you make your game more like x-pilot since I think that's a more realistic model?"
Wulfe questions you seemingly knowing what model is more accurate. You come back with the planes you've flown <in>. HT has flown <in> even more advanced WW2 aircraft.
Neither X-pilot nor AH models flight accurately. If you believe either does then you are dillusional. Both try to do it as accurately as possible. You simply perceive that one does it better than the other. That may be... but you are no more of an expert to determine that than HT. And to come here and suggest they use x-pilot data is downright insulting.
AKDejaVu
-
I've flown in the full motion Boeing Simulators a few times. 737, 747 and the new 777 simulator. Have you?
I've also flown Cessna172s, Cozy Kit Plane and in Gliders (my uncle flies power and glider planes in Montana, ever been ridge soaring?).
Does this make me just as qualified as you are to make assumptions about how HTC models their flight?
Nope! And because you've flown a something er other naval trainer makes you more qualified? Heh... bullllllllsssssshhhhhiiiiittt tttt
I'd recommend you get real data before you spew up your "experience" and how it feels to you.
-SW
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=009521 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=009521)
"DeeZCamp, how well does Blade element theory repoduce motor output or the weight of the airplane?
In other words your just swaping one set of data for another.
HiTech"
DeeZCamp, just curious... are you carrying out the same continual campaign with Austin Meyer to add ACM/guns to his program? Or have you just decided to nag the ever-loving out of HTC?
-
Wow..
DeeZee camp. I thought your question was reasonable and not offensive at all.
These guys have somehow made it so that if you dissagree with them. You are insulting HT personaly. They really get offended when you seem to have some credentials.
Nice twist and about what I have come to accept from some of these rabid chearleaders.
-
Pongo, he's making assumptions of something he has no idea about. Unless Deezcamp somehow got his hands on the source code, he doesn't know what's modelled. That's what I pointed out, therefore he is talking out of his bellybutton because he does NOT have any information or data as to WHAT is modelled in AH.
-SW
-
Most of these items that I mentioned have already been discussed and acknowledged in the past here.
DZ, I have flown X-plane, but not a whole lot. I've read their marketing materials as well and that's my confusion as to what you think they're doing and we're not. I will agree with you that it is hard to compare the two. Which flight model was more highly regarded, MFS or MCFS?
P.S.- everybody lay off with the attacks.
-
I'm not attacking anyone... I'm pointing out his flaws. :D
-SW
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
Pongo, he's making assumptions of something he has no idea about. Unless Deezcamp somehow got his hands on the source code, he doesn't know what's modelled. That's what I pointed out, therefore he is talking out of his bellybutton because he does NOT have any information or data as to WHAT is modelled in AH.
-SW
So an experianced pilot. Flying AH and doing a certain manuver in a certain plane he had lots of hours in wouldnt notice that a certain effect of a certain aeorodynamic force was not being applied?
I dont know anything about it....
But shouldnt a pilot in some sort of course way feel that this simulation of flight had some of the characteristics of real flight?
I admit he didnt originally list the characteristics that were missing. But still it seems a valid observation that another simulation seems more complete in that way and is there no way to use simulare technology in AH?
-
pyro,
are there any chances automatic flap and slat systems will be modeled, both visually, aurally (sp?) and performance wise?
i am thinking especially in regards to the shiden-kai and the bf-109.
while the e retention and other aspects of ww2ol's bf109 are laughable, hearing the asymmetric "bang" of the slats extending is pretty damned cool :)
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
So an experianced pilot. Flying AH and doing a certain manuver in a certain plane he had lots of hours in wouldnt notice that a certain effect of a certain aeorodynamic force was not being applied?
I dont know anything about it....
But shouldnt a pilot in some sort of course way feel that this simulation of flight had some of the characteristics of real flight?
I admit he didnt originally list the characteristics that were missing. But still it seems a valid observation that another simulation seems more complete in that way and is there no way to use simulare technology in AH?
An experienced simulator pilot.. He admits to that, but don't see anything about real planes.
What I'm trying to say is, he has no idea how or what is modelled in AH. He's judging by "feel", that's something a real pilot would never make the mistake of saying. AH simulates flying very well and, from my experience, these planes "behave" like real world planes (as close to real world flying as you can get on a PC) should.
So in the end, he's going by what he "feels" is missing or is coded wrong. While he has no idea how AH models the planes in a virtual world.
-SW
-
Pyro, I am glad that you responded :) now this is what I would like for you to try,if you are willing.
goto www.x-plane.org (http://www.x-plane.org) and download a P51 or any other WWII fighter and install it, then take off / normal/as well as any weather setup x-wind takeoff, etc.. then do acro with it. power on/off stalls turn on smoke "x" if you want to emphisize the flight path and interaction of wind/aerodynamic forces of thrust applied to the airstream.
Goto an outside view "SHIFT 2" for fly by and pull into vertical and analize hanging prop, and reaction of stall recovery. Do slow flight, as well as hi speed handling as well as turn rate vs radius.(noteing energy state througout procedures.
Create an Aircraft with the CAD type plane creation program (one from the Aces High Planeset). And compare the DIFFERNT abilites of aces vs Xplane. Include a non biased opion please :) I know this sounds strange considering it is a comparison to Your OWN product.
I would really like to know what YOU THINK of X-plane.. not that you have used it just a bit :) If you find something that you feel you LIKE, then perhaps maybe you guys could interpret it and possible add it?
Again I WOULD like to let it be KNOWN that I am IN NO WAY Degrading Aces.
I would like to let it be KNOWN that I REALLY LIKE ACES for many aspects (I do agree that it is the BEST A2A WWII combat flight sim/game) boxed or non boxed. I think this is because of the ever evolving additions that are being added and the ability to have a good flight model.
It is my general concern with accuracey in flight physics(the randomness and unstructured aspect of it)
that they be as close to reality in order to properly use ACM in a virtual simulated environment. Simply put, nothing should ever be predetermined as far as flight physics are concerned.
Anyway.. thanks for the reply..
:cool: :) :D
-
Thank you Pongo for understanding what I am posting about :) ITs nice to see that we have people who can read and understand a post. <S>
Now how many more will react/reply with a decent non bashing post? :D
<S> Pongo :cool:
-
sure no prob.
Pyro you jump right on that making a plane for xplane and testing it for us now...
let us know how it goes..
-
Why spend time making an Airplane for X-plane when you can spend that time on making a new plane or fixing other various FM problems with AH. It's not really easy to create planes, it takes time even if you have a good fast system to create them with, you need a 3D modell, you need a 3D cockpit to go with the rest of it, you need weights, HP, engine, wing shape etc etc etc.
I agree that Hammerheads and "staright up" stalls feel weird in AH, it usually brings your plane straight into some form of spin instead of making a tail slide, even with engine shut down and Ailerons trimmed rigth for the "tail slide speed" it's very difficult to make one, pherhaps this can be fixed but IMO you shouldn't fix it by comparing other products to it and trying to find out what they've done.
I haven't played X-plane much, I'd REALLY like to have it and pherhaps, some day I'll buy, when I have some money, it looks nice and FM feels good.
This post is not, in any way, intended to "rack down" on somebody, all ideas or good ideas but IMO it's not the way to go.
<S>
-
goto www.x-plane.org (http://www.x-plane.org) and download a P51 or any other WWII fighter and install it, then take off / normal/as well as any weather setup x-wind takeoff, etc..
HT/Pyro - don't even think about it! It's evil, I tell ya! ;)Get back to work you lazy gits! Keep on programming and debugging :D We love ya without daft x-planes :D :D :D
-
hehe SW you are amazing, lol I wish I had your stroke of inability to understand what someone is saying. lol
I have flown the B-2 sim while I was in the airforce( and its multimillion$$ flight envelope is about 99.9999999999 percent of X-planes flight calculation.)
To make a comparison that is like saying X-plane is using the same Hi-fedelity flight characteristics as that hydraulically operated 5 ton monster our pilots train in before we let them in the real deal.
Like another Aces high user posted, the stalling charcteristics seem to be act strange.
As far as my expericence in flying REAL planes I have been up MANY times, in various aricraft and many versions of 152's/katanas/as well as a Naval trainer. Performing the manovers then making a comparision based on THOSE experiences.
What I see is that The flight envelope as well as the development of flight characteristics are differnet from what I have expericened.
My sole comparison here is that X does it closer to what I have experienced in REALITY.
X-plane, like in reality is more fluid, and very unpredictable. You do not get a feeling of riding on a rail through the virtual skies.
I wanted to make a 3rd party comparision as well so I downloaded the beta/trial version of WB3 and wow its horrible (the flight model that is) It has nice eye candy, compariable to the likes of MSCFS, but as far as real world (simulated to the best as possible) Flight physics.. yuck
So heres my opinon take it leave it... X-plane has more fluid/dynamic (accurate flight envelope compared to Aces High,... And Aces High has a more fluid and Dynamic Flight model compared to War Birds.
okay start your flaming... lets see how many we can get in this time :D
-
X-plane, like in reality is more fluid, and very unpredictable. You do not get a feeling of riding on a rail through the virtual skies.
Hmmm... No flame, just confusion. So, the real flying is unpredictable? I guess I need to sign my will tonight ;)cuz I need to do some circuits tomorrow - haven't been up for a month.
Do x-planes have a demo thing? I want to try "unpredictable" flying. My personal grudge with all flight sims is that very "fluidity". I move a stick an inch in a real plane there's an instant and positive reaction - no mush! (not in a small planes anyway).
My personal grudge with you is that you have an issue in mind, and for whatever reason you want to bring it to the attention of a very busy person. Of all things, you chose to hijack his own thread on a totally different subject in his own bulletin board. Ever heard of e-mail?
Please go away and stop harrassing developers who maintain active and positive relationship with their customers. Let us silly spend our $30 bucks on AH. Surely since we are still here we think that on balance of things AH is better than anything else out there. Can't you get this simple thing? Or is it not modelled with the use of Blade Element Theory and thus is totally incomprehensible?
-
Deez,
Are you licensed yet? SEA only? Roughly how much time, if you don't mind my asking? Curious as to the experience level vs what you've been saying.
Thx.
-
DeeZCamp
Congratz! You have effectively hi-jacked this thread from it's original discussion, and turned it into an X-Plane vs AH discussion. <S>
Personally, I'd rather hear what Pyro has to say about the changes he's doing to AH.
Just keep in mind that X-plane is SW too, it could have modeling errors just as well.
If you have specific RL data which points out problems with the current AH FM - by all means let's hear it.
Nexus :D
[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: DmdNexus ]
-
Deez: The flight envelopes of the planes you have time in are quite different from those of WWII fighters. Can you even define the term "flight envelope"? Can you show me where AH is faulty in this area? I think you are just using big words that the X-Plane advertising hype machine has put in your mouth.
If you want to say that you like X-Plane better because it feels subjectively more natural to you, that's cool. But don't try to dress it up in the clothes of a scientific argument, because it ain't.
[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Sorry, Im not trying to change the total discussion of the topic sorry for that.. I am still awaiting for Pyro's response :)
more to follow... please no one take this the wrong way.
-
hehe your funny Funked .. im not even going to bother answering that question.
Just go along with the others.. :)
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
Deez: The flight envelopes of the planes you have time in are quite different from those of WWII fighters. Can you even define the term "flight envelope"? Can you show me where AH is faulty in this area? I think you are just using big words that the X-Plane advertising hype machine has put in your mouth.
If you want to say that you like X-Plane better because it feels subjectively more natural to you, that's cool. But don't try to dress it up in the clothes of a scientific argument, because it ain't.
You know I was getting to that, but he simply doesn't get it.
I just chalk it up to mis-education.
-SW
-
Why are people attacking DeeZcamp for asking questions about the FM and how it compares to X-planes?
This isn't religion or politics guy's, if you want to flame take it to the off topic forum.
-
He's not asking questions, he's telling us.
I guess it's all in how you want to read it.
-SW
-
i want to ask a really dumb question to ezcamp
to me fm means a radio frequency. ;)
but how would you know that Xplane is more accurate than AH if none of them publishes there specs?
with no way of comparing one set of specs used for any plane to the others approach, isnt the entire argument subjective?
if wb, xplane, ah, fa, aw and all of these games made public their flight models than someone might be able to talk intelligent bout this stuff....
until then, i get get nauseous reading all of this and it just makes great fodder for the 3000 plus poster boys :D
-
i want to ask a really dumb question to ezcamp
to me fm means a radio frequency.
but how would you know that Xplane is more accurate than AH if none of them publishes there specs?
with no way of comparing one set of specs used for any plane to the others approach, isnt the entire argument subjective?
if wb, xplane, ah, fa, aw and all of these games made public their flight models than someone might be able to talk intelligent bout this stuff....
until then, i get get nauseous reading all of this and it just makes great fodder for the 3000 plus poster boys :D
Thus your quest to jump in and emulate them <us>. :rolleyes: Someday take the time to read your own post. I fail to see that little number at the bottom of it makes it any less nausiating than anyone elses.
AKDejaVu
[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: AKDejaVu ]
-
Really guys, stop attacking DeeZCamp.
He just wanted Pyro to compare X-plane to AH.
IMHO, his comment might have been more effective and germane to this discussion if he had:
1. Done the comparison himself,
2. Recorded the specific differences,
3. Backed that up with RL factual data,
4. and then published the results.
Nah... that's too much trouble...
"the NIKI FM is porked!!" :mad:
"We are the knights that say NIKI!" :p
"Arggggh! Don't say that word"
"What word?"
"I dunno"
"Any way, the the NIKI FM..."
"Arrrggggh! don't say that word"
Nexus :p
-
:D <S> DMDneXus ;)
Remeber those n1k figts the other night? ;)
-
Pyro should spend every waking moment working on the AH system and not checking out anything else!!! Not x-plane, not wwiiol, not movies, not babes, not anything but AH and sleep for him. Hook him up to an IV or something, and chain him to that desk! :D
-
I agree with F4UDOA and Nexus actually. But my questions to Deez still stand. I hate to jump on the bashwagon like that but he deserved it. Anyways it just gives him a chance to prove yet again that he is a classy guy by taking all this abuse with good humor. :)
-
PS Thanks Pyro.
-
So... once the weight is adjusted on the CHOG, will it continue to be perked?
-
yes sandman :D :D :D
Pyro, I have 5 megs worth of historical info on the 38, where can I send it so you can take a look at it? It has great info on how the dive flaps worked and what the pilots felt/experienced with them extended as well as spin characteristics and combat flaps stuff.
Guys, kindly delete those flame posts, dont scare pyro away from his own thread :D
-
Deez,
I downloaded demo, but doesn't seem to work very well with my x36 combo stick and ch pedals pro.
Any suggestions (other than buying a new flight control system)?
(I'm thinking of testing WWII planes in x-plane)
P.S. Zigrat, thx for all your posts on FM and FM testing, very impressive work. I know a little about aerodynamics and control and trying to put it to use in WWII AC FM prog/test.
cheers
-
X-plane only allows for 1 critical altitude for the engine, so it's impossible to get the right power at all heights for a 2-speed supercharger, like 90% of WW2 planes had. Any difference in feel between AH and X-plane seems to be just inertia related (AH planes feel a bit lighter). X-plane doesn't let you specify what the moments of inertia actually are, so you have no way of knowing even the calculated value, since it doesn't show anywhere that I could see in the planemaker.
-
punt
-
Pyro ya there? :p ??
-
i'd also like to know if the 109 slats are in the works. thanks.
also - dee zee camp do you appen to work for laminar research or be named austin meyer?
-
Hear, hear ... news about the George and the C-Hog! Thx for the infos PYRO. Keep up with the good work, AH *is* actually the best.
P.S.: thanks GOD, a thread where no rocket scientist is asking for films ;) :) :D
-
Pyro...
Maybe it was the font in AW. I remember talking on VOX once when I first started playing. I said there was an N1K1 in the area and everyone on channel asked me what an N1K1 was.
Finally, someone else saw it and said, "Niki, 3 o'clock low"
It surely must have started in AW.
-
I remember when i started flying with the Night hawks and I was on RW for the first time with theam ...George on your 6 Cougar 9or somting like that)..everyone said almost in unison whats a George...I said it is a N1K2-J... O....he mean's a NIKI...well why dident he say that?!...i said because it is not a NIKI....eventualy I gave up and stated calling it a NIKI...kinda drove me nut's but people are creature's of habit and they werent leting lose of it :)Every time i see it or hear it I just think u mean a freaking George :)
Brady
-
Thanks Pyro.
BTW, regarding the N1K2's turn rate, is it as high as it is just to model the turnrate with automatic maneuvering flaps? I just assumed that's why it turned so well in here (As opposed to showing the flaps deploy, etc.).
I think X-Planes has an excellent FM. However, I can't compare it to AH, as I don't know how HTC implements the FM, and as such, HTC probably considers it propietary info.
Off topic (sort of): I have flown WW2OL, FA, WB, AW, and AH and I can't tell you which one has the most accurate FM. Some of them have glaring errors I can see, but I won't digress into that here. I can write the equations, plug in the numbers, tell you what the results are, but that only offers us first order numbers (I could do the same with coding and check the results). What would be interesting would be to see a MAJOR aerospace firm offer some data from their advanced CFD codes (And simulator codes) and results and compare with actual flight test data of existing warbirds, then get some actual WW2 Combat pilots and some pilots who fly them today input as to the 'feel' (I know this has been done to some extent...e.g. HT's 51 ride). I realize all the FM/sim coders out there try to do that with historical data, etc (Some of it very accurate), but it would be interesting with some of the advanced codes in the industry today to offer some 'definitive data' with regard to the entire EOMs for each aircraft through out the entire flight envelope. I'm not holding my breath. ;)
P.S.- This is sort of along the lines of that NASTRAN Ref.(I think that is what it was) paper Funked put the link up to before, only more in depth.
-
deez from what i can see you are merely asking for what you feel is a realistic flight model (x-plane) to be looked at by a person whos possibly more qualified to just have a look at it and give you an objective answer,nothing wrong with that.It seems people just like to wind each other up in here rather than just read and agree or not.<shrug>
Its a nice idea but i dont think pyro has the time by the looks of it.If pyro has already flown xplane im sure he knows what is good or not himself and as its not his product so why mention it? :D i bet hes played more differnt flight sims FM than ive had hot women! ;)(undoubtedly! hehe).If i was you id take it that hes seen it already.
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
;) im sure hes seen it
<S> hazed
-
I can't believe I read the whole thing...
Tronsky
-
Here's that article in case anybody is interested. I wonder if X-plane models aeroelasticity. :D
http://www.raf303.org/funked/cfd/ (http://www.raf303.org/funked/cfd/)
[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
The P-38 flap lift might be a little low. I'm measuring about a 60% increase from flaps, where it should be closer to 75-80% (from pilot manual, with airspeed correction). The other US planes that I tested (F4u-1D, F6f, P-47D, P-51D) checked out ok with about 35% increase in lift from flaps.
I'm using speed trim with engine off and finding the exact speed where the stall warning sound starts, with both flaps up and down. The idea was not to find the exact stalling speed, but the difference in speeds so as to find the % increase in lift. In the P-38, I measured 132 mph clean and 104 mph with full flaps.
-
For Deez and others...
A couple of my squadmates and I from the 56th FG went and visited HTC this morning. On top of having the opportunity to meet EddieK and seeing Thunder again we had a good session with HT. One of the things that HT wowed us with was the method they use to test aircraft in AH. It is a visual model with little arrows all around it showing amounts of thrust, lift, and drag. It can be applied to each airplane and one runs it in a arena offline. Got a glimpse of the "tables" he uses, I said a glimpse, it is an awsome table and the number of variables are mind boggeling. He wasn't showing us the tables, just noticed them when he was setting up the test.
Guys, these people are professionals. They definately know what they are doing and the extent of what they model is amazing. Example: the amount of wing flex induced by the ailerons in a roll with the resultant effects on flight.
Do they make mistakes? Sure they do. They are human and sometimes a value is misstyped. That they are willing to listen if someone has data to back up their thoughts is a real treat for us flying this sim.
I have some limited experience setting up flight models when I have modeled some aircraft in MSFlightsim. It doesn't have near the number of variables and it is difficult at best to get a beleivable and accurate flight model.
Give these guys a break. They deserve it :).
Post reccomendations all you want but back it up with hard facts and good data. Not "feelings" :D.
(http://home.att.net/~lmluper/markatsig.jpg) (http://www.jump.net/~cs3)
-
Thanks, Mark!
-
*send a couple of shaved sheep to visit wells on these warm summer nights*
the man deserves it! *S*!
-
Wells,
You measured what at 132MPH on the P-38? A stall or just stall warning? 104MPH with full flap? Seems a little high ehh?
later
-
the he said the first onset of stall warning... not stalling, but just the buzz.
One interesting thing about the p38 should be that the inner sections should stall out before the outer ones do. Since the inner sections will have no spanwise flow duue to the nacelle actingas a boundry layer gate, the inner section of the airfoil should have a lift/curve slope near the ideal 2Pi/radians, but should have a low maximum angle of attack. The outer sections, on the other hand, shouldhave a shallower slope but most likely stall at a higher aoa.
whats this mean? it means that it should be nearly impossible for ap38 to enter a stall where it loses aileron control unless flight speed is so low that there isn't enough dynamic pressure for aileron effectiveness.
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper:
Got a glimpse of the "tables" he uses, I said a glimpse, it is an awsome table and the number of variables are mind boggeling. He wasn't showing us the tables, just noticed them when he was setting up the test.
[/URL]
till all these flightsims print these numbers in public then its all feel.
the experts here would have somethin to compare to.
i doubt any of these games want that fm info available for their competition though. :D
-
Originally posted by Zigrat:
whats this mean? it means that it should be nearly impossible for a p38 to enter a stall where it loses aileron control unless flight speed is so low that there isn't enough dynamic pressure for aileron effectiveness.
Yes and no. One of the things about working at/near stalling speeds is that dropping an airleron to pick up your wing can add just enough drag that the outboard wing panel stalls too.
Normal procedure in that part of the flight envelope is to pick up the dropping wing with rudder. IOW, leave the ailerons alone even though they "technically" will still work.
Dwarf
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper:
For Deez and others...
A couple of my squadmates and I from the 56th FG went and visited HTC this morning. On top of having the opportunity to meet EddieK and seeing Thunder again we had a good session with HT. One of the things that HT wowed us with was the method they use to test aircraft in AH.
Gee....I went to visit HTC last Thursday evening and all I got was a couple of beers at Kirby's. :(
<edit>
On second thought...I think my visit was a lot more productive than yours MarkAT. :D
[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: sling322 ]
-
Thank you for that brief glimpse into the HTC in workings Mark! More or less re-inforces my pretty already substantial trust in them.
Westy
[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]
-
Yes and no. One of the things about working at/near stalling speeds is that dropping an airleron to pick up your wing can add just enough drag that the outboard wing panel stalls too.
Normal procedure in that part of the flight envelope is to pick up the dropping wing with rudder. IOW, leave the ailerons alone even though they "technically" will still work.
The cool thing is that all that stuff happens in AH. :)
-
Punt - for Badboy
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
I'm not attacking anyone... I'm pointing out his flaws. :D
-SW
Not especially trying to punt this thread but this is the funniest thing I've read all day...
-
Originally posted by Dwarf:
Yes and no. One of the things about working at/near stalling speeds is that dropping an airleron to pick up your wing can add just enough drag that the outboard wing panel stalls too.
Normal procedure in that part of the flight envelope is to pick up the dropping wing with rudder. IOW, leave the ailerons alone even though they "technically" will still work.
Dwarf
Not exactly true. When you are on the edge of a stall, using aileron to pick up a wing makes the wing work harder (ie. produces more lift). This means that the wing you are trying to pick up will actually stall as it is working harder. That wing will then drop, rather than pick up. This is called "aileron reversal".
(A friend of mine was in the back seat of a Cherokee when a student pilot caused aileron reversal while on short final. This managed to get the instructor to scream... :eek: )