Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: F4UDOA on March 25, 2003, 02:09:34 PM
-
Heya,
In "Unlimited Air Racing" Simm they have a dynamic flight model.
This means being able to modify certain area's of your A/C to improve performance. It has already been done so why can't it be done here.
Such as
1. Being able to remove external stores pylons on A/C to reduce drag.
2. Able to vary ammo load on takeoff to reduce weight.
3. On A/C that could do it allow overboost for short periods of time. This was common practice in WW2.
4. Being able to clip wings on A/C that had them.
In other words add variables to A/C to improve/Change performance within certain guildlines. Every change for the positive would obviously have a negative change as well.
Think outside the "Boxed simm"!!
-
All but #4 are already in AH, afaik.
(edit)
Let me clarify my remarks.
1. Being able to remove external stores pylons on A/C to reduce drag.
If you choose an Me-110 w/ rockets, you will get drag from the rockets. Once you fire them, you will still have some drag from the pylons, but if you choose on your next flight not to fly with rockets, there will be no extra drag from the weapons hardpoints.
2. Able to vary ammo load on takeoff to reduce weight.
A Lanc with 14K in bombs will have a heavier takeoff weight modeled in the game then a Lanc with fewer bombs. On a fighter, there are often at least two ammo (bullets, cannon shells) loadouts, each presumably with a different weight. If this is not enough, are you suggesting modelling this the way fuel is, so you would be taking off with 25% ammo as well?
3. On A/C that could do it allow overboost for short periods of time. This was common practice in WW2.
War Emergency Power seems to be the way this is modeled in the game. Is that adequate?
4. Being able to clip wings on A/C that had them.
By clip, are you referring to the racing practice of clipping a bit off the outside of the wing to get higher top speeds (and an associated loss in lift, increase in landing/takeoff speeds, etc)? If so, was this something that was actually done on the battlefield in WWII?
-
I think we already have all of these, if not, most of them. The way i lighten my ammo load is actually get rid of it before i take off. Yes, if I have Jug with 2 500 lb bombs, and I only want one, I drop it on the runway before starting my engine. As it said above we have the WEP, too.
-
Chairboy,
1. You may be unaware of this but when you jettison ordinance on some aircraft the pylons and the drag fom them remains. In fact even if you take off with no bombs or tanks you still have them on the F4U-1D.
Specifically the F4U-1D. I have confirmed this with HT and Pyro. Pyro says that as long as it is a typical loadout it does not have to be "clean". Just as long as it is close. This is not all A/C, just some.
2. I don't mean on Buffs, I mean fighters. Example again the F4U-1D has 2400 rounds of .50 cal on takeoff weighting over 700LBS. Even with 50% of that I have as much ammo as a fully loaded P-51B. So why should I have to carry an extra 350LBS if I am not going very far? The Jug has options most do not.
3. When I say overboost I mean beyond the limits of the Flight manual. In the F4U-1D WEP is 60" of MAP. Using WEP in AH means you have a certain amount of water limiting your WEP time but in reality you could boost with or without water to well beyond 60" without damaging a Pratt&Whitney. You could run it up to 72" for long periods of time. It is all based on temperature not boost limits or Water amounts.
4. Yes I mean clipping wings as was done for air racing. It was also done on the Spitfire, F4U and P-47 during the war for various reasons. Why not have the option in AH if it was possible during the war??
(http://www.vought.com/photos/images/0686_20.jpg)
-
I want zero length rocket rails on the Mosquito. The long rails we have now add a LOT of drag, even after the rockets are fired. For that reason I don't like taking the rockets.
-
Related - sort of
The P-51D has no visable wing pylons for bombs/drop tanks.
So the question is, is the drag of the pylons modeled?
Actually, I was rather disapointed to see the new P-51D visually modelled without them. The bombs look kind of hokey just floating there under the wings.
-
I can see the comments now!!! Everyone already yells about "spit dweebs" ( and yes I am one!!!! a spit is easy to fly yes. to fly well is a different story). Can you imagine a clipped wing MK IX or XIV!!! The clipped winged spits were faster, out climbed AND out turned most fighters it ever encountered
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
4. Yes I mean clipping wings as was done for air racing. It was also done on the Spitfire, F4U and P-47 during the war for various reasons. Why not have the option in AH if it was possible during the war??
Because those weren't options like fuel/ammo load outs but rather sub-variants of certain plane models. An example is the Spitfire Mk IXe, it had clipped but was just a sub-variant of the Mk IX. The pilot couldn't just tell his ground crew to clip off the wings.
ack-ack
-
Very true AKAK
The P47N had the clipped wings aswell as ALOT of other improvements.
Just redesigning the wing would give us a plane that never existed (maybe just an experimental model or 2..dunno)
-
Designing an interface for something like this that would be extensible enough could be a nightmare. I mean once it is found that some Spitfires removed the 4th propeller blade to reduce drag or something even more obscure is desired that couldn't been foreseen.
// fats
-
The clipped wing idea is just an example of a variable that could be used.
In WW2 if there was to much weight many pilots would remove certain items they felt they did not need. Many ground crews overbosted engines etc. In fact the Japanese pilots would fly without parachutes, take out what little armour plate they had just to get a maneuver advantage.
I think we should be afforded some of the same benifits if we are truely on a "tour of duty".
Why not be able to shed armour, fly with reduced armament or Overboost your engine when you need to bug out in a hurry?
-
I say no to being able to clip the wings of whatever you want...
Just add new models with clipped wings... probably the only way it could be done anyways
SKurj
-
Frankly there is no differance between a F4U-1 clipped or not except the wing tips.
The Spit had different models with and without.
The P-47 was the only varient with them but aside from carrying more fuel and higher HP could someone tell me one improvement in the P-47N that would be an advantage in AH?
Everybody want 6 different mods of the FW190, Spit, P-47 etc. I am just giving people an opportunity to do these things without waiting for HTC to give us a new model once every three or four months.
The fact is there were far more subvarients of A/C that saw service than will ever be modeled here or anywhere else. The question is do you want to try them or not?
I'm not saying put a R2800 in a Spitfire. I am just saying that we should be able to have control within historic guildlines of options on a given A/C.
BTW Addy,
Could you tell me how clipped wings would make a spitfire turn better? It would improve roll rate but have a higher stall speed and more induced drag because of the lose of the eliptical shape of the wing and wing area. And why would it climb better?
The question is do you want a Simm of revolution or evolution?
We don't have detailed engine managment. (Targetware)
We don't have Box Simm Graphics. (IL-2)
We don't have very many A/C to choose from relative to FA and WB.
What we do have have is a superior physics model.
So why don't we expand what we have (physics model) instead of trying to compete with Simms that are more eye candy than reality based?
-
I just say new model because... I don't want to fight a clipped wing aircraft that I cannot tell is clipped wing visually....
There were also Spits with extended wingtips for hi-alt work...
Were these mods often reversed? was it a simple field mod? I kinda wonder if thats NOT the case with most aircraft...
Modelling the ability to "clip" the wings may also be much more complex than just copy paste the current model, modify wing sections, add correct FM voila...
Engine tweaks, weight mods fine... just when it comes to visuals I think ya gotta watch complexity...
SKurj
-
SKurj,
what you see visually is piece of cake, switching to a different model would be like - uh - 2 lines of code. Developing a system for the FM changes is a different thing.
// fats
-
F4U, I don't know how or why (I am no means a physics professor!!) though I would guess it might have something to do with control suface size to wing size ( I really dont know!). But I can dig up the performance charts for a clipped 9 and a reg 9, and the difference is amazing
-
Addy,
You don't need to show any performance. numbers. I was just a little frustrated with some of the negative feedback.
In anycase it is not like this has ever been done.
Check here for Extreme Airracing. They may be a racing simm more than a combat simm but they have the most detailed Physics model bar anyone in the market. And they also provide Whitepapers on the aerodynamics on the web site.
http://www.xtremeairracing.com/
Check out these features in PDF on the flight model features
FM PDF (http://www.xtremeairracing.com/features/flight_model_features.pdf)
I just think that people are saying I can't be done. What I'm saying is that it already has been done.
-
Originally posted by fats
SKurj,
what you see visually is piece of cake, switching to a different model would be like - uh - 2 lines of code. Developing a system for the FM changes is a different thing.
// fats
Well if its a piece of cake... Why hasn't it already been done with current aircraft? 190A5,A8, spit9, P47 (based on gun package) as examples...
SKurj
-
Originally posted by acepilot2
I think we already have all of these, if not, most of them. The way i lighten my ammo load is actually get rid of it before i take off. Yes, if I have Jug with 2 500 lb bombs, and I only want one, I drop it on the runway before starting my engine. As it said above we have the WEP, too.
A Jug with one 500 lbs bomb (if the other was dropped) doesn't fly too well. Better take the center bomb plus rockets and jettinson them ;)
-
Are you sure that racks/rails really hurt performance? I ran several tests a couple of months ago on this (Mossie, Typhoon, P-38) and not once was that the case. Yes, when the ordinance was on the rail/rack there was a penalty, but once dropped, it was like the rack was never there. I ran like 30 tests with different ordinance/fuel/ammo loadouts just to be sure, filmed them all so I knew I was getting digitally accurate speeds, and the largest variation I had was 1mph. Seriously, I compared to an aircraft launched in a totally clean fashion, had fuel set to 0 burn, and compared to aircraft where I'd ejected the ordinance, and the difference was zero... in one case, it was 1 mph.
-Soda
The Assassins.
-
HT said for rockets I believe that once fired there is no penalty (said in the MA.. long time ago can't be 100% certain)
Though it has also been stated that the pylons on F4u-1d are fixed and factored into the fm... but I don't know if that was all the pylons,, or just for the bombs...
SKurj
-
Skurj,
Your right. The pylon are always on the F4U-1D regardless of loadout.
They slow it down by 8MPH on the deck and about 10MPH at 20K.
And I have the docs to prove it.
-
Here is an example of a dynamic flight model option I'd like:
Many Mosquito Mk VIs had the ducted saxaphone exhaust that ours has, but many also lacked it. It would be nice to be able to choose to take it or leave it.
The difference is that without the ducted exhaust the Mosquito is about 15mph faster, with the ducted exhaust the Mosquito's exhaust flares are suppressed.
The open exhaust ejectors are more appropriate for day use, and the ducted exhaust was used for night-fighter operations.
I would dearly like to have that extra 15mph of the day intruders in the speed demon infested AH MA.
-
Exactly Karnak!!
Instead of having to wait 6 months for a new varient have an options list for A/C for different features that were historically available.
Every time Dehavilland wanted to add a new feature to the Mossie they didn't re-invent the Aeroplane they just added a feature or two. Why can't we do the same??
Just like loadout options.
Example
F4U-1D
Clipped wings
External stores pylons
Rocket rails
Centerline bomb rack
20 mill cannons (would be a F4U-1C then with a perkcost)
Folding wings (Would be a FG-1D)
These are variable features that all existed on the F4U-1D. Why should I wait for a new paint job when I can just add or delete options from the A/C.
All historically accurate BTW.
-
Such a system as this wouldn't make much difference because EVERYONE would be doing it. So we'd basically have a "WW2 game" where everbody was flying maxed-out hotrods....the planes would still perform pretty much the same compared to each other so nobody would really gain much of an advantage.
J_A_B
-
JAB,
I'm not trying to develope a system that would give anyone an advantage.
I would like to however be able to skip the Non-sense of waiting for a Spit IX LF or HF (I believe those are the correct designations) or ME109G2, G6, G10, G1000 etc.
I think the basic A/C should be the base model then you select an engine. Then other items are highlighted, then select aramament, then ordinance etc.
I just don't think that HTC should have to rebuild every FM and artwork from scatch to give us a subvarient that may only be different by a few HP,Lbs or gun package.
We could already have the P-47N/M, F6F-5N, etc, etc if we could had a P-47 selection with a configure menu instead of having three seperate P-47's in the menu now while we wait for 2 more.
Just add clipped wings and a uprated power plant and lets go. It should be no worse than adding a new bomb or rocket to the ordinance menu.
I keep hearing people say they don't want it but nobody ever says they don't want a new version of an existing A/C. Why not just add the features instead of re-inventing the wheel??
-
I see what you're saying, but it might not be terribly easy to implement AND get it right. Look at how many bugs are present even in the current planes' flightmodels.
Perhaps, if such a system is practical, rather than make it player-end HTC could use it TO add new variants of units more quickly.
J_A_B
-
JAB,
The quick addition of varients is exactly what I hope for.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Such a system as this wouldn't make much difference because EVERYONE would be doing it. So we'd basically have a "WW2 game" where everbody was flying maxed-out hotrods....the planes would still perform pretty much the same compared to each other so nobody would really gain much of an advantage.
J_A_B
They wouldn't if it cost perks to implement each improvement. I for one would love a better mosquito, and more importantly a L.F. Spitfire.
As for the clipped wing F4u's it was the RAF that first did that, while the Americans used the f4u as a land fighter. The RN used it as a carrier borne fighter but they needed to clip 18" off the wings to fit below decks on British carriers (which had less hangar head room than US carriers), i have no idea how this effected flight performance though.
-
Look it's very simple. In order for HTC to implement anything new it has to be tested thoroughly. If you were to add multiple options for each aircraft you are talking hundreds and even thousands of possible variations. How are they going to test that? Then you're going to have people whining that the C.G. is off on plane X when they select 1/2 load of ammo, 3 rockets, 37%fuel, with clipped wings :rolleyes: or some such.
Yes it could be done, look at X-Plane. But I actually prefer the FM for AH over X-Plane. By having a finite planeset and options you can really fine tune and tweak each particular aircraft. Something you cannot do with a super configurable system. BTW, AH does have a Dynamic Flight Model, I think you meant something like a Dynamic Plane Configuration or something like that.
-
g00b,
I didn't compare it to X planes. Try the link I provided for Extreme Air Racing. It uses a far superior FM and provides for more fine A/C control and dynamic variables than Xplane.
The other things you mentioned are really not issues.
1. All software needs to be tested regardless of the specific flight engine chosen for AH2. It should not require anymore testing than new AH A/C currently do.
2. Problems with CG? Unless the hardpoints on the A/C are modelled wrong no their won't be. Remember these are real life aircraft that are modeled. As long as you use the same specs as the A/C design calls for the CG issues were worked out 50yeras ago.
What would be different in testing or variables from the current AH design to a variable one as far as testing? Does't every bomb, Rocket, engine A/C require testing now? Then what would change? Cutting 18 inches off a wingtip?
Remember this has already been done and quite successfully with Xtreme Airracing. Why don't you try before you whine about it?
-
I didn't compare it to X planes. Try the link I provided for Extreme Air Racing. It uses a far superior FM and provides for more fine A/C control and dynamic variables than Xplane.
I'm not certain you know what X-Plane is, based on the above comment. X-plane offers hundreds of variables to modify for each plane, down the the shape, specific NACA airfoils, drag co-efficients, and more.
As for the rest of your message, the tone you took with the previous poster is really uncalled for. What you identified as a whine was actually a well thought out and delivered explanation for why your suggestion isn't practical. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't automatically categorize their post as a 'whine'.
Finally, I'm in professional software development, and I can say with some experience that the configuration model you suggest would be very complex to design and not, as you put it, "It should not require anymore testing than new AH A/C currently do".
-
No Chairboy the post was not a whine, the title of the post however "I can't believe this thread is still going on" is clearly a whine.
So basically my message was if you choose to be sarcastic and not creative then don't post in the thread.
And BTW (I have repeated this about 100 times in this thread) adding a dynamic flight model has already been done in this market successfully at least twice(even MS flight simms are dynamic to a degree). Acting like it is vaporware and that it would require some impossible amount of programming or testing is rediculous.
Also every company that writes software has testing criteria. Weather it is a dynamic flightmodel or not the programmers will still run the same protocals they always do when writing code.
I am not a software person but I am a Wireless Network Systems Analyst so I do know something about design and testing. So it can't be done or it is impossible is just rediculous especially when at least two other functional simms use the same concept.
-
regarding your usage of "dynamic flight model".
"I do no think that word means what you think it means."
This is for you...
http://www.cyberonic.net/~gdevault/Sandbox.mp3
-
dynamic
SYLLABICATION: dy·nam·ic
PRONUNCIATION: d-nmk
ADJECTIVE: also dy·nam·i·cal (--kl) 1a. Of or relating to energy or to objects in motion. b. Of or relating to the study of dynamics. 2. Characterized by continuous change, activity, or progress: a dynamic market. 3. Marked by intensity and vigor; forceful. See synonyms at active. 4. Of or relating to variation of intensity, as in musical sound.
NOUN: 1. An interactive system or process, especially one involving competing or conflicting forces: “the story of a malign dynamic between white prejudice and black autonomy” (Edmund S. Morgan). 2. A force, especially political, social, or psychological: the main dynamic behind the revolution.
ETYMOLOGY: French dynamique, from Greek dunamikos, powerful, from dunamis, power, from dunasthai, to be able. See deu-2 in Appendix I.
OTHER FORMS: dy·nami·cal·ly —ADVERB
I'm pretty sure I know what dynamic means.
BTW you link doesn't work.
-
Try right-clicking and "save as"
As far as the rest... I have both X-Plane and Extreme Air Racing (and almost every other flight sime to come out since SWOTL) and neither has as a good a "feel" as AH. Go ahead, try a high speed snap roll, flatspin, tailslide, whatever, only AH even aproaches reality when it comes to stall behavior. As a matter of fact, I have not yet found another flight sim that will let you get into an accelerated stall by just yanking too hard on the stick. I mean, my god, did you even try the "dogfight" mode in Extreme Air Racing? It is absolutely terrible. And I wouldn't want a historical combat flight sim based off X-Plane either. Though a "fantasy" combat flight sim based off X-Plane would be fun :)
Dynamic Flight Modeling is modeling how your aircraft flies in real-time. Things like how gear and flaps, fuel and ammo, bugs on your wing, etc... change the handling of your aircraft. Clipping your wings before the flight starts, does not automatically qualify as a "Dynamic Flight Model". Most flight sims would simply apply a set of pre-existing conditions to model the clipped-wing effect. They would not, as you contend, figure out the appropriate conditions to apply "on the fly" in real-time. It would be much harder to develop aircraft for true dynamic flight modeling. You need to know EVERY little detail of a plane to truly re-create it properly with a DFM. Not only do you have to know where all the rivets are in a P51, you have to PUT THEM THERE in the model. This roughly equates to actually building the aircraft in terms of development time. You have to know things like the surface friction of the finish of the aircraft you are modeling. And what happens when you are all done and your "model" doesn't match the performance of the original? I guarentee few, if any, of them would.
What you are asking for is non-trivial. I for one would much rather have a finite plane set, that all handle very closely to their historical brethren, than an unlimited one that simply approximated them.
IMHO, AH has the best FM of any flight sim to date. I think many, if not most here, agree with me. Why do you want fix what ain't broke?
-
Dude,
Read the entire thread. I agree that the FM here is the best.
I will quote myself.
We don't have detailed engine managment. (Targetware)
We don't have Box Simm Graphics. (IL-2)
We don't have very many A/C to choose from relative to FA and WB.
What we do have have is a superior physics model.
So why don't we expand what we have (physics model) instead of trying to compete with Simms that are more eye candy than reality based?
I said dynamic flight model, not dynamic FM.
I agree that the FM in AH is the best in the combat flight simm arena.
What we disagree on is weather being able to change conditions of each A/C is viable.
I say it is because regardless of weather you create a new model or modify an existing one the tesing remains the same with the exception of a complete redisign of art work and most variables assigned to each A/C.
Every f;ight model in every simm is a number of variable components plugged into an equation. I am saying that changing parts of the equation are easier and faster than creating an entirely new formula.
If we can get past the sarcasm I think there is a conversation in here somewhere.
-
OK
Sarcasm off...
The idea has merit. As I said, I would love an X-plane based fantasy combat-sim.
However, I think what you are asking for would require an entire new game from the ground up, and it would never have the fidelity of the existing AH FM. I just don't think you understand the magnitude of what you are asking for.
see ya in the virual skies!