Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Gunslayer on June 24, 2001, 05:37:00 PM
-
Well I was going to post to the thread that Pyro had started but once they get that long whats the point? Well I guess i need to start this by asking what crawled up the AK guys rears and died. I mean really Deezcamp asked a legitimate question only to be flamed to no end by the 2 ak guys and many others.
I know deezcamp personally in real life. He is kind of a goof. But when it comes to airplanes he know what he is talking about. I think its rather ignorant for guys (you know who you are AK) to post You have never seen the source code to aces or X-plane. How could you know what they do and do not model?
Well, I have never seen the source code for Need for Speed 3 or Grand Prix Legends. But it is quite obvious which one simulates the physics of driving better. I have enough driving experience to tell (some cart racing on indy style tracks) that the physics in GPL are superb.
Much the same way, Deez in his flight experience can tell that the Aces High flight model, while the best in the biz for WW2 combat, is not as realistic as X-plane. Does this mean deez hates Aces High? Far from it. He repeatedly states that he loves this game. That is why he would like to see the FM improved. Many real life ACM manouveres cannot be performed correctly in aces high because it doesn't simulate the physics correctly.
He asked Pyro about it in a polite non-derogatory manner . But even Pyro gets his defenses up instantly and just says deez doesn't know what he is talking about without really looking into what he has to say. All deez really wants to know is what Pyro thinks about the benefits of table based flight model like we have in aces high versus a real-time blade element theory engine such as the one in X-plane. If either Hitech or Pyro actually answered that question deez would probably shut up.
I don't think deez want anything different than any of us. He wants to see Aces High improved, which the guys at HTC are constantly doing. We all want to put out two cents in on how its improved. Lets leave deez alone and let him say his bit. HTC may take his suggestion, they may take our suggestions. But noone should be blasted for making suggestions. Even if they do it more than once
Gunslayer
-
Gunslayer, thanks god that there are people like u that actually saw the point Deez was trying to express.
But anyway the thread was funny to read and with every new post of SW i had even more to laugh in front of my screen. Sometimes its really weird that people seems to be insulted even by the most polite post someone wrote.
-
tards post here.
BTW deezcamp turn easy mode off (combat trim) and i bet AH will feel more like your "real life flights in a ww2 plane"
-AKhog
-
Hey, Guns, maybe you know the answer.
I asked Deez in that other thread if he's a licensed pilot and roughly what ratings and time he had built up.
Never got an answer, do you know?
Would help in evaluating his comments.
Thanks!
-
All deez really wants to know is what Pyro thinks about the benefits of table based flight model like we have in aces high versus a real-time blade element theory engine such as the one in X-plane.
and I think Pyro's point was, 'How do you know that Aces High is a table based model?' I've never seen that information revealed anywhere. Do you have some kind of inside information?
-
Heya all, In response 1. to Toad I believe, I have approx 30 hrs of non-logged time within Various 152 aircraft, about 5 hrs of Acro time in Navy T-43 (I may be incorrect on the Idnetifier though )it was a Tri cycle setup, no tail dragger.
And a measly 6.5 Hrs logged in a Katana ;).
For a super short summarization, I have done power on/off stalls, Dutch rolls, barrel rolls, slow flight, pattern work, general flight, x-country prep,I-mans, as well as other aerobatic manovers and general flight. Have pulled as much as 6Gs+ (hehe fun :P )
I have also flown ( simulated B-2 Stealth Bomber Trainer for the USAF.)(multimillion full motion hydro actuated setup, VR screens real nice solid wrapped screen no splits as well as realtime sgi like graphics. IT is really nice :D
Now based on my Flight experience, I may not know every FAR, or the applicable subset of AIM knowlege, but I do have an understanding of the underlying princepals of physical flight. Of which this entire argument/suggestion/debate is about.
X-plane simply allows for a more fluid /dynamic representation of flight than aces. It does so by the way it calucates its flight simulation by means of blade element theory. But whatever , for those who dont care/belive me fine try it then tell me what you think.
For the person (i cant recall right now who asked about how i know that HTC used data tables, ... Hitech said it himself in the "Flight modeling thread" I posted quite awhile ago....
A very intersting thing about that thread is that HTC said " if HTC would use blade element they for Aces flight charcteristics, it would merely be a trade off between what they use now (data) for the realtime calucualation of components" (airfoils, that make up the x-plane flight model Aircraft.
He states that "you would be merely substituting data for another set of data"
What this tells you is that they are using tables and information to list specific flight characterisitcs and how the aircraft will react based on a cross reference to those tables.
Now in the End of that post, ... after all the debate that hitech states "Why should aces use something like blade theory",He then contradicts himself stating that "he has been using Blade element theory all the time."
Now my question is IF aces USES blade element theory than why is "ACES blade element theory" different from "X-plane Blade element theory"...
I would think that If you can equate what I have said above to a simple expression, such as Acesblade to X-planblade, you should come out with the same result, just as 2+2=4
My point is that if someone uses a way of doing something that is known and used among the two parties, then the result would be the same. In this case,... Flight simulation/representation/limitations of physical flight characteristics.
Anyway, I still have not seen a reply to all this from Pyro, so Idunno where he stands or thinks with all this. :confused:
For all the bashers and people that are very quick to make a decision that I have not a clue as to what I speak, or that I am in someway trying to be a jerk, I really think you need to stop, look at your self and really ask yourself why you have a need to be an attacker to any who asks a question. Is it fear of change? or a personal ignorance that you feel, because you may not know/comprehend what the topic or the context of the argument is. :rolleyes:
Anyway ... As ive stated before X-plane is like apples and oranges compared to Aces in the sense that they have to differing roles... one is an IFR/VFR type sim/trainer,engineering tool. The other is a WWII air combat Game.
Point of all this... I would like to see realtime calulation based on the shapes of the aircraft used here with the given data of weight and engine specs to be the determined flight characteristics.
oh yeah , I have not been using combat trim Hog, just ta let ya know. (using it is unrealistic as well as limiting to the perfommance to what you can get out of your aircraft. IMO
Id like to say lastly that I feel that Aces is an awesome Online sim, best ive ever seen ever known, and really enjoy the updates, and differnt planes :) I would just like some response on the FM stuff.
Anyway... -Deez out..
"gettin ready for the flames to begin"
:p :D :rolleyes:
-
LMFAO
Now THAT is some funny chit.
-AKHog
-
Got your cheerleader gear on Hog? :rolleyes:
-
Point of all this... I would like to see realtime calulation based on the shapes of the aircraft used here with the given data of weight and engine specs to be the determined flight characteristics.
In AH, if you lose the wingtip off of your aircraft, the flight characteristics of your aircraft change. From what I've read here, losing the wingtip from an F4U will actually allow you to fly faster, since removing the part lowers the overall drag on the aircraft. (and the additional rudder input to stabalize you doesn't replace all the lost drag)
My "don't know toejam about airplanes" question:
Doesn't this suggest that they do take into account the shape of the aircraft?
SOB
-
Actually SOB, and I may be on crack, but wouldn't an airplane that lost part of its wing fly slower? From what I can tell, the engine here is doing something like this:
If wing = damaged
Add 50 to clockwise roll
Subtract 25 drag from flight table
This is just a pseudo version of the many lines of code that would actually represent this function. But it seems to be more of a predetermined effect than a real time modeling of wing damage. And the wing damage always has the same effect. If the wing shape were being used in real time then the engine could simulate different effects for varying levels of wing damage.
-
Originally posted by Gunslayer:
Well, I have never seen the source code for Need for Speed 3 or Grand Prix Legends. But it is quite obvious which one simulates the physics of driving better. I have enough driving experience to tell (some cart racing on indy style tracks) that the physics in GPL are superb.
Lol, the physics of gpl are nice, but far from being realistic.
niklas
-
Originally posted by Gunslayer:
Actually SOB, and I may be on crack, but wouldn't an airplane that lost part of its wing fly slower?
Remember... "Don't know toejam about airplanes" Quit asking me questions! ;)
This is just a pseudo version of the many lines of code that would actually represent this function. But it seems to be more of a predetermined effect than a real time modeling of wing damage. And the wing damage always has the same effect.
Probably true, but this concerns AH's damage model, not the whatchamacallit modelling that Deez is talking about. You've only got 4 parts (affecting flight) to loose on the average wing in AH - Flap, Aileron, Wing Tip, Wing. You either have them on your plane or you don't...at least I think it still works that way! :)
If the wing shape were being used in real time then the engine could simulate different effects for varying levels of wing damage
Add more parts to loose and consequences to loosing them, and you have these effects. I would think the current engine, however it does things, could do this just like any other engine.
SOB
-
Gunslayer, he's guesstimating on what X-Plane models vs what AH models.
I dunno HOW many times I have to repeat it, but guesstimating on something you do NOT know about is not wise! I've read 3 versions of code all written differently that do the exact same freaking thing.. some are just more efficient. He's going by feel, saying that "X-Plane feels better"... great some people say WW2Ol feels better than AH or WB feels better than AH.. it's all about perception not actual formulas.
That's what crawled up my butt, I hate it when people that do not know what's going on behind the scenes pretend like they do.
-SW
-
hehe Wulf go look for your self to see the contradiction HTC himself posted. duh :rolleyes: :p
-
Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
hehe Wulf go look for your self to see the contradiction HTC himself posted.
Uh where? HTC is not a himself, HTC is a business. Three letter abbreviation for HiTech Creations, Inc.
So, where's this contradiction?
-SW
-
Hum. If I remember right the AH flight model worked by calculating lift and drag components for so many seperate sections of the wing, which were dubbed "lift points", and one of the advangtage over WB when AH was in beta was multiple lifting points vs 2 (or 4?) in WB, so varying degrees of damage could be taken into the flight model. And also the flight model became much more fluid because the wing could be in multiple states across the entirety of it's length, rather than having a change occur across the whole thing in one instant.
Then again I might of just dreamed it. I don't honestly remember. I think that was accumulative of everything I've heard HT say about the FM.
Oh about the whole losing a wing thing...most of the WWII wings aren't very efficent at high speed. The wing doesn't produce much lift, but a good bit of drag. When a section of wing comes off, there goes alot of drag, and some lift. But because the other wing isn't producing all that much either, the rolling motion isn't substantial.
Soon as the plane starts slowing down, theres alot more lift being created, roll tendency increase, splat. I suppose you could argue that there isn't enough rolling tendency at the air foil's best preformence speed.
woot.
-
Lol, the physics of gpl are nice, but far from being realistic.
niklas
Sorry Niki, oops I mean Niklas (Sorry Pyro :) ) According to many experts, Grand Prix Legends has the MOST realistics physics engine of any racing game ever. It was the first game ever to simulate real-time four wheel physics. I would like to know what do you think is not realistic about it?
For Swulfe, I don't believe you have to see the source code to judge a game engine. Yes, Deez has to go by his own experience to compare the feel of the game engines. But most poeple that argue about Aces versus WB versus WW2 online have never flown in real planes. He has enough flight experience to convince me he at least has a decent understanding of what real flight feels like. And he by no means is trying to pretend that he knows what is going on behind the scenes. Many poeple have heard Pyro and Hitech say that aces uses a tables based flight model. I have read it in some of thier posts.
To Jigster:
I agree that if a wing was cut off by a laser beam , drag may have been reduced. But we are talking about machine gun and explosive cannon round hits. These would tear up the outter skin of the plane leaving a very rough drag inducing edge. This coupled with the potential structural damage to the wing would slow the plane or the pilot down. This would also put the plane out or trim and possible requiring some extreme rudder or stick positions to keep the plane flying straight, also slowing it down. My main point here was the wings in aces exist in only 3 states, all there, half gone, or all gone.
[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Gunslayer ]
-
Originally posted by Gunslayer:
For Swulfe, I don't believe you have to see the source code to judge a game engine. Yes, Deez has to go by his own experience to compare the feel of the game engines. But most poeple that argue about Aces versus WB versus WW2 online have never flown in real planes. He has enough flight experience to convince me he at least has a decent understanding of what real flight feels like. And he by no means is trying to pretend that he knows what is going on behind the scenes. Many poeple have heard Pyro and Hitech say that aces uses a tables based flight model. I have read it in some of thier posts.
Gunslayer, Deez has about as many hours in aircraft as I do... I have more in 152s, but I have about 12 hours in a Cozy.
I also have 6 hours in a Boeing 737, 747 and 777 full motion simulator (not 6 hours in each, 6 hours altogether).
I can guarantee you, there is no "feel" in it. AH uses table based flight models in some aspects, but if it hits the numbers and they perform like real world data says (or within 10%) then that's pretty freakin good for a PC. Fact of the matter is, you put X-Plane data in here and you might have something that does NOT hit the numbers in some areas while it does in others. This is no different than the way AH models it.
Now, there was a game(no where near simulating real aircraft) called Flying Circus. This thing had some of the most fluid flight ever... but the planes were all based on the same sets of data. There was no torque. There were spins (and very beautifully modelled spins at that), and "limits" in the flight model (e-loss, etc)...
Case in point, that thing FELT really good to me at simulating flight. It was far from any numbers on the "planes" it was "simulating", but it had a good FEEL.
I'm just saying, there's no way you can FEEL what is right or wrong, there or missing, modelled or not... it's all in the eye of the beholder.
-SW
-
I can agree with you that if a plane in the game performs 90% close to the one in real life, it doesn't matter how the engine does it. But it is possible by playing a game to tell if an airplane is behaving wrong if you have flown a real one. The simple physics are just not right at times in aces. Even I have noticed that the planes don't seem to carry momentum very well. Particularly if you try to perform a manouver like a hammerhead.
I have never flown a real airplane, but I have watched deez fly the p51 in both games and do similar manouvers and the one in X-plane seems to perform closer to what i have seen at airshows and in war films.
I am by no means an X-plane cheerleader though. I hate the cockpit, the view system is abysmal. There is nothing to do but fly around. THe first thing i asked deez when he showed me X-plane was, where are the poeple to shoot? :)
If I had to choose between all the things that aces does well (view system, gunnery model, carrier ops, etc..) or X-planes FM, i would take the aces stuff. But i do think it would be neet to try to shoot someone down online with a Combat sim with an X-plane style physics engine. Who knows maybe Laminar Research will come out with one :) Til then I am playing Aces.
[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Gunslayer ]
-
Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
I have approx 30 hrs of non-logged time within Various 152 aircraft, about 5 hrs of Acro time in Navy T-43 (I may be incorrect on the Idnetifier though )it was a Tri cycle setup, no tail dragger. And a measly 6.5 Hrs logged in a Katana ;). For a super short summarization, I have done power on/off stalls, Dutch rolls, barrel rolls, slow flight, pattern work, general flight, x-country prep,I-mans, as well as other aerobatic manovers and general flight.
Originally posted by Gunslayer:
Yes, Deez has to go by his own experience to compare the feel of the game engines. But most poeple that argue about Aces versus WB versus WW2 online have never flown in real planes. He has enough flight experience to convince me he at least has a decent understanding of what real flight feels like.
:confused:
-AKHog
-
BTW if you cant figure out my last post:
He has ?around? 5 hours in a ww2 trainer. All the other flight time doesnt count, I'm sorry but a 150 hp cessna 152 doesn't even come close to a ~1000 hp ww2 fighter. So the little time that he actualy does have in a plane thats even closly related to our planes was in a training plane that he probably paid for rides in, like at an airshow???. And the only things he has done that come close to acm were rolls and loops. Now you can learn a lot about how a plane handles in that situation BUT to say you know ww2 planes well enough from that situation to say x is better then ah in regard to fm is bs. you just cant get a feel for how a real ww2 plane flys from 5 hours in a ww2 trainer doing loops and rolls.
IMHO if you want to get a better feel for how a ww2 plane feels come up to Maryland with about $200. I'll take you up in my clubs pits 2s and we'll follow my friend in his extra around for a little while. (thats if ya got the balls to climb into a full acro plane w/ chute straped to yer back and an 18 year old kid at the stick :)).
-AKHog
[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: AKHog ]
-
(http://www.af.mil/photos/images/trainers_t43_0002.jpg)
This is a T-43... I highly doubt you were doing any manuevers in this bad boy.
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/1594/t-34-1-1.gif (http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/1594/t-34-1-1.gif) EDIT: You have to cut n paste this into your address bar, since it's a geoshitties site.
That's a T-34.
If you are doing manuevers in either of those, they are far from WWII aircraft performance standards.
Have you ever seen a WWII plane hammerhead?
I can hammerhead in AH, it just takes a little practice. Do it offline, use the F4 view. Use ailerons to keep your plane straight and reduce throttle. Kick full left (or right) rudder and jam the throttle forward.
The AH planes hit the numbers, the FM isn't perfect, but it isn't COMPLETE either.
-SW
[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: SWulfe ]
-
[idiot-mode]
Too move slightly back towards the topic at hand, If AH did use a real-time-Blade-whatcha-majigger versus a Table-based-thinga-mabob It sounds to me that there would be a lot more calculations involved per Aircraft online. If that is true than HTC may not be in a position to re-code everything and upgrade there servers to 32way RISC systems.
[/idiot-mode]
Edit: Who cares how its done now or later, as long as we have fun ;)
[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: AcId ]
-
Yes, he had to mean the T-34. Basically it's a derivative of the Beech Bonanza.
It's a nice airplane. I haven't flown one yet although there's two or three around here. They are good trainers, easy to fly, reportedly with very few bad habits.
SW, your link is broken. Try these.
http://www.avsim.com/pages/0401/vip_t-34/vip_t-34_review.html (http://www.avsim.com/pages/0401/vip_t-34/vip_t-34_review.html)
"The original idea of the T-34 was from the mind of Walter Beech himself, and is based on the original Beech A-35 Bonanza/Debonaire civilian aircraft model. Mr. Beech, due to the lack of defense budgeting for new aircraft—or more specifically budgeting for a new trainer to replace the T-6/NJ (the T-6/NJ was being used by all branches of the military at the end of World War II)—financed the development of the T-34 out of his own pocket with the hopes of selling it to the military.
Of the 3 original prototypes or concept T-34s shown the US Military in 1948, one was equipped with a V tail as was the Bonanza. The conservative nature of the military dictated that any new aircraft was going to be conventional in all respects and there was only one T-34 ever built with the V tail.
The Beech T-34 Mentor finally won out on a years long competition for a new replacement trainer for all branches of the US Military; full production of the T-34 began in 1953 lasting through 1956. Unfortunately, Walter Beech passed away in 1950 and he never got to see his pet project come to realization. All in all, 1,199 examples of the Beech T-34 Mentor were built (all versions including the original prototypes)."
http://www.limalima.com/mentor.html (http://www.limalima.com/mentor.html)
"The Mentor was the brainchild of Walter Beech, who saw the need for a less expensive and easier-to-fly trainer than the North American AT-6/SNJ, which both the U.S. Navy and Air Force were using for primary training in the 1940's."
Both pages have some good info.
-
DeeZCamp: I never contridicted myself, you are complete mixing defintions and I just responed to you as best I could with your exatremly limited understanding of flight dynamics.
Point 1 is blade element theroy has absoblutly nothing to do with inputing a plane or wing shape. It is simply a method of caculating forces on a rotating airfoil by breaking that airfoil down into smaller components, adding the rotational vel. with the spacial vel, and then summing the forces
at all the sample points.
Your using the term Blade Element theroy in multiple ways.
At the begining of this descusion a while back you made a simple statment. That HTC should use B.E.T. because then how could anyone argue with the output of a model. Well that is a totaly incorect assumption. Take a look at XPlane and look at the fudge factor numbers like swaged drag coef's and eng performance. These need to come from some where, why are they not comming out of there B.E.T?
Next comes the way they treat airfoils, you assume they do some type of realtime flow caculations over the airfoil. They don't per there hype, they take a NACA airfoil number, then compute the cm,cl,cd tables. They then interplate these tables between multiple points on the airfoil.
Deezcamp:You lack an even basic understanding of flight physics and the math behind different aproches to plane modeling, let alone being able to judge what XPlane does different that makes you like it's feel better than AH's. In a nut shell you like XPlane, and that's great I have no desire to degrade other peoples modeling efforts, but in the end you picked up 1 buzz word they use and thought it was the greatest thing since purple underware. Have you done any detail testing of there model to find out how well it models climb rates and max speed on one of there WWII prop planes threw it's full altitude range? Or how well they hit roll rates threw various speeds? Or how there planes hit sustained turn numbers? Id be curious to find out how well they do.
The deal is you realy have no idea what XPlane is doing that creates the feel you like. You just know you like it. Therefore you are arguing from a totaly uninformed and invalid basis.
HiTech
-
I've got time in a lot of things, from a hang glider to the TA-4J Skyhawk. I've flown the T-34B and the T-28C. Most of my time logged in in Cessnas and Mooneys. AH feels pretty darn good to me for what it is supposed to be delivering.
There are things that need to be fixed or tweaked in this game. It works like this though, what do you want more, a better selection of aircraft, more terrains, roads and trains, more accurate flight model, better damage model, better artwork, more features? Choose one for the team to work on. The resources are limited and they can't do it all right now. More resources you say? Too many people squeak about the price now, are you willing to pay for it? Heh, I've found that they usually do listen.
-
Well said HT.
SW has been saying the exact same thing in different ways for about the last 20 posts, as have others.
Hope its all clear now.
-AKHog
-
Actually Akhog, Swulfe has just been blasting Deez relentlessly in a rather unpolite and unprofessional manner most of the time.
-
Hah! Point that one out to me Gunslayer.
Unpolite and unprofessional because I did not agree with him?
Or because I did not believe him?
Or because I know that you can NOT feel what is modelled and what isn't, yet you insisted he could feel it out?
Gimme a break, I was never unpolite, I was just proving he was wrong.
-SW
-
Originally posted be Swulfe
You must be the most (un)intelligent person in the world.
you are simply talking out of your tail pipe.
And because you've flown a something er other naval trainer makes you more qualified? Heh... bullllllllsssssshhhhhiiiiittt tttt
therefore he is talking out of his bellybutton because he does NOT have any information or data as to WHAT is modelled in AH.
These seem like personal attacks to me, not just polite disagreement. Personally I prefer when people act like adults on these boards , but some to prefer to start name calling and the like. That is what it appeared to me that you were doing. Calling deez unintelligent is not proving your point either. We have yet to see any proof to support your statement that deez is wrong other than your opinions. All you have done is repeat it over and over again with no data to back it up, therefore you assumptions must be as foundless as you believe Deezcamp's to be.
It it clear to me that we aren't going to see eye to eye on the feeling of a flight model or not. But there are many game reviewers and the like whose job it is to judge such things. Poeple that write for simHQ or Pc Pilot magazine's job is to do just that. Play a game, make as accurate a judgement as they can about the gameplay, graphics, and yes the feel of the flight physics, and write a review of it. If they can do it I assume it must be possible, else they are being paid for nothing.
If this is true then the real debate is whether Deezcamp has enough flight experience to make these judgement. I guess maybe someone could ask the poeple that write these reviews how much flight experience they have and compare it to Deezcamp's. If that person were trying to find a civil answer for this debate.
Gunslayer
[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Gunslayer ]
-
No data? Back what up?
I'm NOT the one saying that X-Plane models flight better than AH, he is the one.
I'm telling him he is talking out of his bellybutton (uninformed guesses= unintelligence in my book) because he does NOT know what is modelled in AH.
I've said before, you can NOT go by feel as to what is modelled.
Hell, even HiTech refuted his claims as to what DeezCamp is supposedly "intelligently" talking about. Well in your eyes anyway.
As for those guys that write reviews... LOL!!!
Dude, you really have no idea about game e-zines, do you?
How do you think they get their hands on these alpha/betas? Where do you think their funding comes from? Out of their own good will to keep us informed?
I've read reviews of how great the flight was in Crimson Skies... CRIMSON SKIES!!!!
Don't believe everything you read or hear.
My assumptions are based on what I've read from DeezCamp. What I've read has less than impressed me, it reads like he is copying and pasting this stuff straight from X-Plane's website.
He pretends to know a lot, but he apparently doesn't know much about what's going on.
I can guarantee you this much, the only thing you can tell whether or not is modelled is something apparent and obvious in flight... not something you "feel".
HiTech has already said his bit about X-Plane, and you continue to insist I made assumptions? What I've been saying all along HiTech has just proven me right.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Gunslayer:
We have yet to see any proof to support your statement that deez is wrong other than your opinions. All you have done is repeat it over and over again with no data to back it up, therefore you assumptions must be as foundless as you believe Deezcamp's to be.
You miss the entire point, WAKE UP!!! deez says x feels more real then ah based on ?5? hours in some kind of naval trainer, probably not even close to a ww2 plane.
We are saying is there is now way you can tell the difference between FMs based on that amount of RL flight. There is no
Data we need to back this up. Furthermore *everything* deez uses as a point is taken strait from xplanes web site
and he makes guesses as to how AH's FM is modeled, then compares the two.
"A little knowledge is dangerous."
Please dont diss AH's flight model based on another sims promotional website and 5 hours of semi ACM type flight. thanks
And please dont deny dissing AH's flight model in previous posts cause I dont wana dig it all back up and post your quotes again.
-AKHog
-
Thanks for taking the time out to respond HT.
-
lol, This is funny stuff, I must not know a thing about flight physics.
:rolleyes:
Please Hitech, I hope that you are not getting affended by all of this,
If you are then why?
I find it rather rude and false for you to come out and say I have not even a basic understanding of flight physics. I guess this can be summed up to your anger that is brought on by me asking these controversial questions.
Beyond all of your data and explanations of how the physical flight model is calculated compared to X, you have NEVER ONCE answered my QUESTION that I have posed to PYRO, of whom I guess did not feel inclined to answer on his own behalf.
I question that, being you are the developer of a program ,and another person suggests you look into another programs way of calculating flight, you have not told the specific differnces of your own program.
It seems easy for you to say that X is only doing such and such, and then not give any info that compares the two... Why?
This entire argument about feel is rediculous, ANYONE CAN FEEL by some factor of immersion of a program whether or not it is simulating somthing. You can compare this example...
QUAKE feels LESS relistic than say RAINBOW 6, because of the way that it HANDLES and involves Shooting of weapons/damge inflicted onto another player.
Just as gunslyer has posted at an earlier time, the FEEL of driving game A has a more REALISTIC feel than DRIVING game B. You can take someone who has never driven a car before take them on thier first drive and then have them play MARIO KART for nin64 then play GPL.I wonder what game they will say FEELS MORE REALISTIC.
TO go to an EXTREME, would be to compare TOP GUN for nintendo, and ACES high. IT IS MOST obvious that Aces High is MORE realistic by the way it looks/FEELS/and involves Air combat in a multiplay environment. :D
For anyone to say that you cannot determine anything by feel, I guess the senses should really only be sight/Taste/sound. Or how about this ...
Anyone who has ever stated that the N1k is jacked up because it flys like a UFO, the way it flies "FEELS" like a UFO, or anything along those lines, I guess they are WRONG for "FEELING" the strangeness of
how it flies, and therefore are ignorant to any basic understanding of what is right/wrong in fluidness of Flight physics.
Heres a really exotic example, hopefully I dont loose people on this,IM
SURE I will though.. its inevitable... ;)
YOu ever driven down the highway going around 75-80, heya even better how about out side the window of a little single engine as your flyin along and feel the airpressure/resistance on your hand. beyond it feeling tingly and fluidlike, your hand is now very receptive to any change in movment. IT is very fluid, very precise also. This is how X-plane feels, Based on airpressure densities and so forth all set via options you can choose for it to simulate. Now take Aces,.... same situation,... well instead of being completley Fluid and dynamic, you
feel restricted, to a degree less precise. More sluggish, and overall less responsive to overall randomness of physical(simulated air being rushed around the aircraft)... Is Aces Bad? By no MEANS.. but my
Point... X "FEELS" more realistic. I know it sure doesn't look as good as Aces, but thats just the Sight part.
Hitech,...
You pose the questions of what are the differnces in the form of tests between the two programs and that I have to test them,...
Is this not what I have been asking all along? I would think that based on your feeling so strong that X is only doing such and such as far as its FM goes, then why are their so many drastic differences
between the way X vs Aces handles flight? Why would you have not already posted how Aces handles more acuratly than X? I mean your the programmer, you have obviously more resources to work with, as well as an already established set of data, couldnt you wip up a conclusion between the two to prove your point?
With your statment that I lack any mathematical knowledge reguarding the calculations of simulated flight, this is rather laughable and unfounded. Are you an elitist now? Is the knowledge that you possess so unatainable that I may never reach the understanding that you have?
(ive never proclamied to be a programmer) if I had the Visual C library in my head I would write out some code, and show you some ideas. Untill I start writing more than int such and such and cout lines,.. All this
comes down to feel, Of which according to many sources does not exist.
On another note,..Hitech I commend you on many efforts you and your team have placed in getting aces to where it is now,.. Dont get the impression that I am downlplaying other aspects of aces (well with the
exception that it is becoming more of a massive FFA furball without real strategic goals) BUT I know that you are adressing even this so that is very commendable on your part. I also understand that aces is
in an ever evolving state, so changes come and changes GO. Ive said it before and I'll say it again, ACes is the Best WWII Air combat game I have ever seen.
For all the knuckle heads ala..hehe the peanut gallery "all those who say AK" please stand up :D Your next :D
You guys that rant and rave about deez this and deez that, have you even done what I have suggested posts & posts ago?... try it yourself and then say somthing? Is that hard? I mean if someone told me that hey
try this its better(or political term "Different") than such and such... I would see what the deal is. Based on anything that you "KNOTHEADS" :p have said, I dont get the impression you've even
checked it out. Oh well though I guess untill you see some printed form of data sheet that shows such and such can only go such and such at such and such, then is it hard evidence. Or better yet if the Creator
of the game we all play says something that seems to be in anger with an obvious disagreeing with me and agreeance with you,... your sure to pucker up real well :D ;)
Anyway Deez-out
-
I'm not going to buy a 40$ game to fly navigation.
Nor do I make assumptions based on how something feels without ACTUAL DATA LIKE YOUR BUDDY GUNSLAYER INSISTS I DO NOT HAVE!
I don't even know how you "feel" plane physics generated by a computer in the first place.. unless it's a full motion simulator.
-SW
-
time for this thred to be locked, sw work your magic.
-AKHog
-
You just wasted a whole lot of virtual ink blabbing about how your not going to test and present the differences. In effect you are saying that HT or Pyro should take the time to test and evaluate the differences based soley on your curiosity.
That sounds stupid to me. Where is the pay back for them? Few if any people have presented well defined flight model iregularities here that have not been addressed by HTC or discounted by HTC.
They owe none of us a look at thier code. It is valuble propriatery information.
They owe none of us an evaulation of another game.
You seem to be getting wrapped up in the argument for the sake of it.
You got your answer. Quit antagonizing our programmer, Take this to the xplane bbs and ask them why their game doesnt model bomb blast as well as AH does.
-
Close your mind close the thread Akhog?
-
To Hitech,
Thanks for taking the time to answer Deez's question. Even though he may not have gotten the answer he wanted, he did get an answer. This is one of the things that seperates aces from the other online flight sims out there. We can get a real answer from the real guys making the game. <S> Hitech
To Deez, Its time to take it down a notch buddy. You got an answer. Take a few deep breaths and chill before you post out in anger :mad: . If HT doesn't want to see how X-plane flies that's his perogative. Maybe it's time to let this one go.
Gunslayer
-
Hmmmm....Gunslayer and Deez....same guy?
Talking to himself ala Nath and his alias a few months back.
-
Had that same thought Sling.
-
I've been disagreeing with you Deez since you first began blasting channel 1 with your xplane propaganda.
-SW
-
Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
A lot of feelings.
So now it's not about the wonder of "blade element theory", it's about feel? After all of your babbling about a certain way of programming versus how HT codes AH, it's all about feel?
So, explain now, how HT is supposed to explain why AH doesn't "feel" as realistic to you as X-Plane. And what would possibly compell him to examine X-Plane's code style and then type up a comparison to how he codes AH?
I think it's time to re-examine your argument. Feel is subjective.
SOB
-
To sling and toad. Deez and I are most definitely not the same person. Look under pilot scores. My game handle is Gunslyer. I am a member of the VMF-323 Death Rattlers. I am a real guy.
To SOB. Feel is only subjective to a point. If I stab you in the eye with a fork, odds are you are gonna say it hurts.
"If you salamander us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if
you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
William Shakespeare"
[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Gunslayer ]
-
Deezcamp and Gunslayer,
You two should take a lession from some of the others who post facts and site the biliographies from where they obtained their data.
A few examples:
Karnak: "The RAF Museum's Mosquito FB.VI's ammo load information"
Wells & Kreighund: "Interesting discrepency in N1K2 data"
Deezcamp, if you know anything about aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering, as you seem to imply you do, then get the data to back up your assertions and present it.
So, far what you guys having been talking.. well.. that's what I put on my garden to make it grow.
Something to ponder if you want to be taken seriously - which at the moment you are not.
Nexus
-
Something is wrong, dmdnexus and I agree.
Damnit SW use your thred locking powers and close the post before it gets outa control!
-AKHog
-
Nexus I am not sure how what you are saying applies to my comments. All i have said in particular was that I didn't think aces high modeled momentum quite right. What am I supposed to site here, Newton's law of gravity ? I assume that the poeple that read the post will know a little about the basic laws of physics.
-
So wait... you stick your hand out the window, and it responds "very fluidly and dynamicaly to any movement." And planes in AH "feel" "Sluggish and mushy." Ok, lemme explain something to you: A hand bears zero resemblance to a high performance world war two airplane!
These aircraft are big. They have two wings (duh), a heavy fuselage in between them, and a heavy engine in front of them turning at several hundred to several thousand rpm. This aircraft has a LOT of inertia! It's not going to react "fluidly and dynamically" to your every movement, because it has to get itself moving first! Even between a wwII fighter and a trainer, there is a differance of up to several TONS. Yikes, hello, hello, is there anybody upstairs? :rolleyes:
Speaking of which, does it seem to anyone else that asking Pyro and Hitech, et al to totally rexamine their flight model and the way it simulates flight because another system "feels" more realistic to one customer is just a tad bit arrogant? ANY FM takes a huge amount of research, work, and coding to implement - because you feel that x-plane is more realistic, HTC should have to revisit the work of the last, what? Two years, three years of their lives? Stupid, stupid, stupid. And yes, that's right, I am calling this STUPID.
Oh, and there is one final argument: With a few notable but minor exceptions, it ain't broken - so why fix it?
-
Gunslayer,
I gave you 2 examples - read them.
I have read at least 5 in the past few weeks which contained - FACTS - not "I feel" and "I think" opinions.
You might want to try talking up, rather than down - you'll gain more respect and your point of view will be more persuasive rather than derisive.
e.g. Newton's law is too simple.
Here's one from M.T.:
"It is better be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"
Cheers,
Nexus :D
[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: DmdNexus ]
-
Hey Nex, I have a quote for you.
"Did you have a bowl of crack for breackfast?" Drill seargent from the show boot camp.
I don't know what you are talking about. Are you confusing me with deez. If I have posted anything as fact that I can't back up , don't just do a lame "I know you said this" post. Back it up with actual quotes.
THe past five weeks? I have only been talking on this subject for a couple days.
-
Gunslayer,
You misread what I said. I didn't say "five weeks". I said a "few weeks", and it did not refer to how long you have been posting in regards to this X-plane issue.
It refers to the time frame in which I've found 5 examples on how other people post and back up their opinions with good facts. There are at least 3 more to be read if you care to search for them.
You and DeeZ seem to miss my point entirely.
You and Deez wish to convince Pyro and Hitech that X-plane is doing something right and AH is doing something wrong in regards to the FM.
I'm trying to point out that there is a better way to get the point across.
I'm actaully trying to help you - not flame you.
Simply:
Do the comparison your self, and back it up with facts.
Include all the physics, aerodynamic formulas, and math to support your arguement.
Don't dumb it down.
Pyro and Hitech and many of the rest of us will understand you quite easily - including my self (computer science, math, and physics major).
I suspect there are even a few aeronautical engineers amongst this group.
From what I have seen, everyone here is interested in making the FM as real as possible - esp. Hitech and Pyro.
Gunslayer, I'm not accusing you of this...
But in general, someone who's arguement is based upon "it doesn't feel right", "it's unrealistic", "I have 30 hours of flight time so I know how real A/C feel" is talking out of their rear end, and it makes them sound like a love muffin flaunting frivolous "creditials".
Such kind of talk is obviously unwelcomed amongst people who know, been there, and done it.
I agree with you on one point in this thread - not to "flame" Deez just for voicing an opinion - and I said this in the original thread - and so did Pyro.
However, Deezcamp needs to do the work himself (not HTC) and back his assertions with FACTS.
It's clear to me, that's what Pyro, Hitech and everyone else is asking.
<unfortunately there are some ignorant flamers chiming in - because they have nothing more intelligent to say - and it shows>
HTC is busy doing what they think is right, based upon their knowledge of aerodynamics and software flight modeling. Which IMHO seems to be extensive.
You can't expect them to make changes to their FM just because someone says "I've flown a real A/C for 30 hours and I know how it feels".
I had 92 hours logged before I was 17, flying Cessnas and Pipers in the Civil Air Patrol. Then added several hundred more as a crew member in the AF - but my opinion don't mean watermelon compared to someone who KNOWS the formulas and principals.
Talk some facts... we would all like to hear some.
Cheers,
Nexus
-
Before I start I want to point out that this thread is not meant to attack anybody including HTC staff. I played the game since version 1.02 and I still like it very much. I have no actual real pilot experience but I have knowledge of airframe dynamics and aerodynamics.
I read the posts on the “FM war” (most of it) and come to the following conclusions:
(pls excuse me for possible language errors, I’m not English or US)
On one side we have HTC who’s trying to make good business in selling an online WWII Combat Flight Sim (I prefer to call it a game actually because of the way people use it) with some added ground and sea war features.
On the other hand there are the gamers and the flight sim enthusiasts. I will restrict my threat to apply to the flight sim enthusiasts and HTC.
Naturally HTC will not give away all data on FM programming in AH not only to protect their business but also to prevent (or not making it easy for) hackers to crack the code and game the game. CFS had a very open program structure which made it easy to do so and we all know what happened to that online sim (you’re never sure if you fight an genuine plane or a “mod plane” ;). But HTC will surely try to have the planes perform as real as possible.
The flight sim enthusiast want to fly planes as realistic as possible and will try to motivate HTC to program the WWII planes as realistic as possible. They also would like HTC to reveal the way they modelled AC performance in AH to as much detail as possible so that the flight sim enthusiasts have means to verify airplane performance, the flight sim enthusiasts would like to tulips whether simulated WWII planes meet real airplane performance specs.
It should be clear that both parties have the same objectives with respect to simulated airplane performance but it is very unlikely that HTC will endanger their business by sharing sensitive information.
But I think there is a solution that will meet both interests. HTC could write a separate module (they could even sell this module as a add-on software product to compensate the inherent work) that would produce output of certain parameters that define aircraft performance in AH (and the real world) without compromising their code or FM. This module could produce output parameters like vectored position, velocity, acceleration, attitude, moments of inertia, thrust, drag, etc, in real-time. The question arises what parameters do we want to be produced as output and in which format. HTC could open a separate forum to draw up an inventory of the requirements (wishes) of flight sim enthusiasts for such a module.
In my opinion both parties would benefit from this. The flight sim enthusiasts would be able to realise their hobby and HTC could benefit from feedback (with useful facts) to improve their product. Despite the fact that I think that HTC has done a great job with respect to the realism of the simulator, I’m sure that the product can be improved with respect to realism simply because I think that a small staff like HTC can’t hold ALL knowledge with respect to ALL WWII aircraft performance in absolute detail and accuracy (this is not an attack!!!)
Now I know that it is debatable whether it is the aim of HTC to make the flight sim as realistic as possible. I don’t know, only HTC can answer that. What I do know is, that if this flight sim is to have a long future, it is important that it IS as realistic as possible. Because as soon as a more realistic flight sim hits the market, people will switch (I’ve seen it happen plenty of times with other flight sims).
I think that an analysis tool for aircraft performance in the simulated environment would be a very welcome asset to the flight sim product.
I hope that HTC will post their thoughts on this proposal.
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: air_ReCoile ]
-
If we were playing baseball, there would be way too many players in left field right about now.
-SW
-
DeezCamp, I don't like to get involved in threads like this but I do have a question for you.
What is your background in regards to the theoretical and practical aspects of simulating flight?
Do you have a background in Physics? Mechanical or Aeronautical Engineering? Math major? Or any field of Engineering at all? Worked in a wind tunnel or other type of flight testing laboratory?
Thats not a flame, but when Hitech questioned your basic understanding of the issues, you claimed to have a very good understanding of the theory and mathematics involved. I'm just trying to understand where your coming from.
The reason I ask is that many of us that do discuss these issues very regularly on this and other BBS's do have the types of backgrounds like I have discussed. So you can understand why some of the community get a little "touchy" when someone shows up and claims to be an expert, but then can't back up they're claims and theory's.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion:
Do you have a background in Physics? Mechanical or Aeronautical Engineering? Math major? Or any field of Engineering at all? Worked in a wind tunnel or other type of flight testing laboratory?
I have a math minor, does that count? ;)
this part reflects in no way how things are modelled in either game. Just a basic thought about real time calculations vs table look ups. Let's assume you've got the same input variables in both cases. In the real time equation, the variables are inserted into the equation, and the algorithm kicks out a value. The same value, every time, given the same inputs. If it doesn't, something is screwed up (or there's a random number generated somewhere in the calculations.) basic example is X + 2. I put in x = 1, I get 3, no matter how many times I do it. Now, if you use a table look up method, you grab all the input variables and using them, you pull a value out of the table (could be using a relational database with a SQL like query system, doesn't matter for this discussion.) Point is, given the same inputs, the same result will be achieved every single time the lookup is done (barring a random number generator.) Everyone hopefully is agreeing with this...
Now, let's assume that you're using these methods to calculate the lift generated by an airfoil. I never took fluid mechanics, but I'm pretty sure there's a standard equation to calculate airflow over a surface, from there you determine the difference in pressure over the top of the wing and the bottom of the wing, and from that you get the lift. Some (yes, some, I don't know 'em all) of the variables you'll need are airspeed of the foil, the density of the air (this would come from altitude, humidity, temp, etc) and the shape of the foil. These inputs are the same regardless if it's going into the real time calculation OR the table look up. The difference is the lookup table values have already been calculated. Therefore you know in advance what the lift for THAT foil is at THAT speed, THAT altitude, THAT air density, etc.; all you do is pull out the value. The equation just chugs through the variables and spits out the answer. The answers should be nearly identical (difference coming from the fact that you'd have to round the table lookups at some point, the real time should be able to take all floating point numbers.)
The point here is that a real time calculation doesn't give much of an advantage over a table look up (if the table numbers were generated with the same algorithm used by the real time calculation.) It can give a finer degree of control due to not having to round data before being fed into the method. However, if the algorithm is intensive, you'll lose efficiency. The table look up will be faster. In other words, saying X is more fluid because it uses real time calculations vs AH look-up tables is a little off base, IMO. SW is right, we don't have any idea how either sim really is deriving its values. For all we know, given the same set of inputs, both sims might spit out the same outputs!
The difference in "feel" for you might be other aspects of the software. Perhaps it's the graphical API calls being used. It might be the fact that AH is designed to be multiplayer, so the planes feel a little jerky, because the game has to keep track of the other planes as well as providing flight data for yours. More factors than just calculating the 4 forces acting on a plane (thrust, lift, drag, gravity) go into how the flight model "feels" to each individual.
The second point I'd like to make is this. Let's assume that X-plane's FM IS better for the moment, and everyone agreed on it. Should HT and crew tear apart their code to make it fly more like X-plane? Before they could even do that, they'd need to get the algorithms from the X-plane people, if X-plane would even let them have it. If not, then HT and crew would have to reverse engineer it (perhaps even come up with it on their own), then write up the design docs, do some initial verification and validation before even setting out to code it. Then they'd have to code it, test it, recode, test, etc etc. Then they'd have to integrate it into the rest of the game code, which could be a nightmare. Basically, it'd take anywhere from 3 months (yeah right) to a year just to do it. Personally, I'd rather see some new planes, railroads, strat changes, etc in that time frame than a re-done flight model that "feels" a little better.
-
Originally posted by Gunslayer:
To sling and toad. Deez and I are most definitely not the same person. Look under pilot scores. My game handle is Gunslyer. I am a member of the VMF-323 Death Rattlers. I am a real guy.
[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Gunslayer ]
Last time I checked, it wasnt illegal to have more than one account. Just ask Ripsnort. ;)
How does your statement prove anything?
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: sling322 ]
-
Perhaps if we just all used AutoCAD, then the FM could be made perfect: every convulation of the airfoil, airflow stream, and every moment point can be calculated.
Surely, most of us have used this software - esp. any one who's ever taken an engineering course in college.
3 day's later may be that break turn we executed will be finished rendering.
Any one have a spare Cray I can borrow?
Nexus :D
<sticks tongue in cheek>
-
This is gunslayer. This is the guy that will be waiting for you in your room at night to kill you if you accuse him of being deezcamp again :mad:
(http://members.home.net/dirgeweb/johnx.JPG)
This is Deezcamp the mild mannered guitarist?X-plane lover extroidinaire.
(http://members.home.net/dirgeweb/graphics/Joepix/joe3.jpg)
This is all I will say about the retarded is deez gunslayer controversy.
:)
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Gunslayer ]
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Gunslayer ]
-
LOL - now we have pictures to confirm what we all suspected...
You guys are "Punks"! :p
Nexus
<I be joking with you>
[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: DmdNexus ]
-
Actually we are heavy metal :)
We play in a band together.