Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Rollio on May 25, 2002, 07:49:29 AM
-
Anyone know if they plan to change the flight model. Overall it's pretty well done however there are a few glaring flaws I've noticed, most having to do with low speed handling and spins/stalls.
First of all in a real plane if you yank back on the stick hard enough to cause a spin, it will spin immediately, not pitch back for 2 seconds then go into 'spin mode'. Also there is too much warning at times (espescially on certain planes).
Second... Weathervaning? Do the tailfeathers/fuse have no effect at low speed or what? Why can't I do a proper whipstall or hammerhead? This is a huge problem as it takes away many possible useful combat maneuvers.
Third, stability. Why is it that so many planes go completely out of control when the rudder/vertical stab is shot off? The fuselage acts like one big vertical stab on real planes preventing this sort of behavior unless some really powerful differential thrust or torque effects are at work. At the minimum, if you cut your engine(s) after losing your rudder/vertical stab, you should have a controllable plane.
Fourth, leveling. Most (if not all to my knowledge) WW2 aircraft had at least a few degrees of dihedral, this has an automatic leveling effect when the plane is in or nearly properly trimmed, I have not seen this effect once in AH.
-
What the world...needs now....is love.....sweet love....yada yada.
Personally, these self-rightous, all knowing critiques, just plain piss me off.
Sorry
-
do u trim your own plane in AH or let combat trim do it for you...
repeat as required..
SKurj
-
First point...I have never flown a real plane so I have no idea if it is realistic or not but I know what you are saying.You are more likely to get a stick stirring message than a departure in flight control if you yank on the stick.I know of other sims that have that high speed stall and more severe spins but again,is that realistic?I don't know,maybe HiTech is right on the money with his FM's.
Second point...I do whipstalls all the time..Never tried a Hammerhead though I can't see why that shouldn't work either.It's more of a WW1 manouver anyways.
Third point....These are WW2 fighters,not PT 19 trainers.They have instabillity built into them that is managed with trim.If you think a FW is missing dihedral effects...I mean..that's the most rediculous thing I've heard in some time.
I hope this wasn't a troll cause I just bit...:o
-
just sayin'
-
Hmmm 242 Suicide Kings...
Isnt that the bunch that got booted from the other sim for hacking? Maybe these so-called innocent querries into the flight modelling have deeper implications.
Lonz
-
Obviously this guy has a lot of hours in real warbirds or he wouldn't post with such certainty. Rollio can you share your logbook with us, I bet it's real impressive. Or are you attempting to use other sims as a historical reference?
-
Put the rope down guys. Nice group here.
Is there no room for improvement in this area?
IMO...
The stall model closely resembles my experiences in low speed power-on and power-off stalls in the Cessna and Aeronca. Stall develops over time with increased mushiness , nose drop and roll until 1 wing departs fully. Roll can be controlled with rudder and decreasing angle of attack breaks the stall.
I do have questions about the Spin modeling. During a stall, you feel a spin developing and know when to break the stall to avoid it. I don't experience this AH. I have occasionally seen other players stall into the ground (and done it myself) , but not much spinning going on.
-
Third, stability. Why is it that so many planes go completely out of control when the rudder/vertical stab is shot off?
=====
Which planes? Ive flown most of em at one time or another and lost rudder on nearly everything in here and Ive never gone totally out of control after losing the rudder. Lose yaw, of course...just RTB and get a new one.
When the entire vert stab goes, yes. Your a goner. Just ask Airbus.
-
jeez what kind of hornets nest is this community? I post legitimate questions and I get flamed over and over?
I won't claim any RL warbird flight experience (neither can just about any of you), HOWEVER that doesn't mean I don't know what they are capable of. I've seen several videos and gone to airshows and such to see them maneuvering. And I've personally flown several models with similar designs.
My points are all valid, at least deserving of some legitimate explanation. The spin point might be at least partially debatable, but with the other three I am certain there is something fishy going on. From a gameplay standpoint the only one that really matters to me is the weathervaning problem, as that has some very strange effects in combat. For example I've pulled vertical, then fell straight down 1000 feet tail first to smack the ground (without any significant rotations in the yaw or roll axis's). Warbirds were tailheavy, but not THAT tailheavy.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Third point....These are WW2 fighters,not PT 19 trainers.They have instabillity built into them that is managed with trim.
Not to be picky here but...
The PT-19 is extremely, exceptionally stable and incredibly forgiving. That is definitely a true statement. It is, without doubt, the best aircraft to train a student in that I have ever flown.
However, not ALL WW2 fighters have "instability built into them". In fact, I doubt any were deliberately made inherently unstable. Rather, aerodynamic tradeoffs were made for performance requirements that resulted in some instability in some aircraft.
Moreover, I know you've read reports, accounts and stories of aircraft that were "excellent gun platforms" and so on. This is a comment primarily on stability. So, quite a few were obviously pretty stable and the pilots noted that.
Lastly, instability is NOT compensated for by pilot trim. I know I've said it before but TRIM is not a primary flight control. If instability is to be compensated for, one uses the PRIMARY flight controls.
By it's very nature, instability implies a continually changing somewhat random situation. Trim is used for exactly the OPPOSITE situation, ie: need for a prolonged control displacement in one direction to maintain a STABLE situation. For example, one would trim nose up in a prolonged climb to relieve pilot work load on holding the stick back. Or one would trim nose up on approach to compensate for a necessary pitch change caused by lowering the gear.
-
Cue Rollio:
I won't claim any RL warbird flight experience
Maybe someone on the HTC dev team could , you think?
-
my comment about combat trim was not clear sorry... turn off combat trim and then try a hammerhead. SOME aircraft can do em sweet +)
SKurj
-
No Offense intended,,BUT If HTC was to create a sym that trully recreates WW2 flight characteristics to a T( which i believe he can), then most, and i do mean most of us wouldn't be able to play this "Game" I for one, like a close FM that is tuff with a learning curve but wouldn't play a game that is ALL work and no play, a balance must be struck between REAL FM and a FM that is playable AND enjoyable to a majority of "players". IMO HTC HAS hit that fine line! You want a real true to life ww2 FM go buy a real plane and fly it. Gamey, arcadish? call it what you want this IS a game, and trully a fun ww2 fighting sym, best on the market if ya asked me.
NUTTZ
Originally posted by Rollio
jeez what kind of hornets nest is this community? I post legitimate questions and I get flamed over and over?
I won't claim any RL warbird flight experience (neither can just about any of you), HOWEVER that doesn't mean I don't know what they are capable of. I've seen several videos and gone to airshows and such to see them maneuvering. And I've personally flown several models with similar designs.
My points are all valid, at least deserving of some legitimate explanation. The spin point might be at least partially debatable, but with the other three I am certain there is something fishy going on. From a gameplay standpoint the only one that really matters to me is the weathervaning problem, as that has some very strange effects in combat. For example I've pulled vertical, then fell straight down 1000 feet tail first to smack the ground (without any significant rotations in the yaw or roll axis's). Warbirds were tailheavy, but not THAT tailheavy.
-
I saw this last night laughed so hard i almost puked.
-
Originally posted by NUTTZ
No Offense intended,,BUT If HTC was to create a sym that trully recreates WW2 flight characteristics to a T( which i believe he can),
No one can recreate all aerodynamic physics to a T on these weak powered computers.
Maybe if you had 10 or 12 1Ghz CPUs crunching the numbers you'd maybe get them recreated to a T then.
PCs just aren't fast enough, and no game models flight departure (stalls/spins) as they happen in the real world.
-SW
-
Originally posted by DmdBT
Hmmm 242 Suicide Kings...
Isnt that the bunch that got booted from the other sim for hacking?
The other sim? We're jumpgate refugeees, and complete newbies in AH, hence the questions.
-
I must agree with Inno here on "hence the questions", we are new to this game.
Kinda wish i never looked at the boards here. I surely will not be posting any questions to this community, with that reaction.(nothing personal). NOT once did i see Roll say he wanted a actual true to life sim, but merely posted questions (that seemed to have some educated comments to go with them as well). Please try to continue this string as a few did with maybe some info. It is clear to me that a lot of you are WAY beyond me in airflight knowledge,and i enjoyed reading those posts that gave some constructive input.
Oh yeah also could you all please give definintions to some of the terms or phrases used, i am not a physics professor you know. heh:D
OOPS i think that was a question i just asked..umm dammit where's my fire exstinquisher...j/k
-
Rollio, I agree with all of your observations except the one on "weathervaning". I feel that this is implemented nicely imho.
Could it be a FM flaw on a particular aircraft ? I fly the P-47 mostly, and it weathervanes like a sob, with some practice I've been able to get nice hammerheads done :D
Apart from that, to add to your list, I feel that the onset of compression is a tad too abrupt in the flight model.
In summary though, among all the premier sims out there (FS2002, WB2.77, Wb3, ,WW2OL, IL2, AW, FA, Janes, etc) I get the most realistic feel from the Aces High flight model.
Snorkey
-
above all else remember always this is not a flight simulator - hell not even close. But its a real fun game :)
-
Originally posted by Rollio
jeez what kind of hornets nest is this community? I post legitimate questions and I get flamed over and over?
Well, just a few thoughts here.
First I don't think you'd have stirred up a "hornet's nest" (not that what I see here is a "hornet's nest") if you'd have approached this a bit differently and worded your post more like actual questions than accusations. This is particularly true since most of the "regulars" that posted here don't know you; you're pretty "new" to this board.
For example, you could easily have left out or reworded the "glaring errors" part. That to me is more of an accusation than a legitimate question.
Secondly, none of us know upon what data you base your... questions... nor do we have any idea how you reached your conclusions. It'd be helpful if you took a bit more time with the post and explained why you believe what you believe. That I think would generate a more restrained, informative response from some really intelligent and well-informed folks that frequent this board.
Third, statements like "Why can't I do a proper whipstall or hammerhead?" and assigning the blame to the flight modeling is going to make you look a bit foolish in the eyes of players that CAN do these things in the game. I assure you, there are many that can. Lots of those guys shoot me down. :) So, if you can't do these things, people assume you are either trolling or just haven't really taken the time to learn how to do them.
Anyway, as I said, if you'd take some time and reframe your questions as questions rather than take an accusatory tone and if you'd provide some more explanation of your questions, then you'd probably generate some worthwhile debate.
-
AH's departure model appears to be very similar to the WB-one, where you need to pull more than 1G to spin the plane. It will stall below that, but it will just mush it out, unless you pull more than 1 G.
As for the rudder, it does seem to have very little effect at slow speeds and it appears that the slipstream have very little effect on the rudder.
Daff
-
OK, I know what a hammer head is.. I can't really do them though. Whats a whip-stall?
-
To save argument, here's definitions from a website. If one disagrees, one should e-mail them, not me. :)
AEROBATICS (http://users.hol.gr/~maulwurf/aerobatics.html)
The Hammerhead turn: Just before stalling in the vertical position, the airplane pivots on the wingtip and cuts a straight line through the horizon. A 180 degrees change of direction in an area as small as the width of a main avenue.
The whip stall: The airplane stalls in a vertical position and starts sliding backwards!
-
Ohhh.. I thought that was called a 'tail-slide'. Same thing I guess.
-
Yep. I'd have said tailslide to that definition. Perhaps the "whip stall" factors in when the nose snaps down after the slide begins.
Lots of different terminology out there.
-
My definition of a whipstall is to pull directly vertical, then stop. As soon as you start falling backwards the air blowing across the tailfeathers grabs them and causes the plane to whip VERY QUICKLY to a nose down position. In aces high this never happens on certain planes, espescially the lightweight ones like the 109 and zero. The plane will just sort of lazily fall off to a noze down direction. Inputting commands in the wrong direction (when falling backwards controls should be reversed) will counteract the effect to the point that it's it's possible to remain in a tail down position. In reality, a plane will not have the ability to remain in a tail down position for very long at all as the majority of it's mass is in a high position and it will want to tip over due to gravity and the air blowing up against the tailfeathers will aggravate this effect even more, causing a very violent change in direction. Flying models, whipstalls and hammerheads were the very first aerobatic maneuvers I learned. Their combat potential is significant as well, as it is a much faster way to reverse your direction of travel than turning or pulling and immelman.
-
Ok, I see what you are saying. Much better tone to it, I might add.
Now, which WW2 planes that we have in AH do not have the ability to whipstall or hammerhead that you think should be able to do so?
Do you have any documentation or supporting evidence?
I think that's sort of how you should proceed here. If you have evidence for the Zero or 109, then present it to HTC.
They're pretty responsive if you can support your claim.
Good luck!
-
Could someone post films of a hammerhead/whipstall?
-
The problem is not so much that the planes can't do a hammerhead/whipstall, many of them can, however all of them should be able to do so and always. Compare it to a cannon round being fired straight up, the law of gravity dictates that it will eventually stop and come right back down. The same should apply to planes in a vertical with zero velocity, it should be inevitable that they stall in such a matter that the nose drops out FAST. Now I'm not saying that a tailslide isn't possible, it is, however not for long. A plane that is falling tail first cannot remain in that condition for any significant length of time (with models I was able to drop perhaps 10 feet at the most in this manner or about 2 1/2 plane lengths). It should be predictable.
Some planes have been pointed out to me as behaving properly in this case (at least in all trials I've done on them). The P47 is a shining example of this. The larger planes in general seem to follow this pattern however I have had an undamaged B17 fall 3 thousand feet tail first so it's not an absolute.
-
I don't think the flight characteristics of models directly correlate to actual aircraft. Compromises are made. For example, look at the effect of the elevator trim on a model of a particular aircraft compared to the effect on a real aircraft. Almost always, the model effect is "scaled up" significantly. This can have real interesting results if one uses this as the blueprint for a computerized flight model. ;)
That being said, I have not really tested the vertical stalling capabilities of the various aircraft here. I break out in hives anytime I'm in the MA and my airspeed gets near zero. Interestingly, the hives form a "bullseye" symbol right in the middle of my back in this condition. So, it's not one of those things I really worry about.
I can see, however, that this concerns you. So, why don't you go through the plane set with a standardized test, record what you find and post the results here for discussion? I'm sure we could then get Pyro to comment.
I look forward to your post!