Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: coyote on September 16, 2000, 01:34:00 PM
-
F4U 100% fuel, 4 rockets, 2000 pounds of bombs take off roll behavior... barley noticable torque. Takes off effortlessly with no flaps...... This is turning in to just another World War Two Airplane Game (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/mad.gif)
-
And NO, I am not using auto take off....... but it sure felt like it!
-
Interesting. I've been flying the F4U a lot lately and I do use autotakeoff initially (I can just let it get airborne whilst I type or go afk a bit) but I have had numerous rearms, which don't use auto, and found I did need rudder to keep it aligned on takeoff or it would have groundlooped on me.
Is combat trim something that might affect this? (I don't use it at all, so curious)
Cheers (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Coyote's right .. before the change the HOG had a really wicked takeoff roll .. if i didn't stay alert all time i'd groundloop (and i flew it exclusively since it came out..)
Now it's hardly a tap of rudder required ..
kindda like the old one better ..
DW6
-
what Duckwing said
-
Im guessing the new FM had more to do with getting the CT to work than anything else.
-
The 109 G-10 lifts off the RW without pulling the stick back!!
I liked the take off in 1.03 better, but hey, what the hey!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
As with any program when you add in new variables and alter others there is going to inevitably be some unwanted changes. What seperates this from Windows 98? Nothing, except Windows 98 is buggier than hell and can be more than a pain in the bellybutton on a daily basis.
As an example, in Red Baron 3D they were trying to get the planes to perform well in comparison to one another. Well what ended up happening some planes got so fudged that it was highly unbelievable. You change a number here, oops 3 numbers over there are way off.
Obviously you are not a programmer otherwise you would know that something this size and complicated is extremely difficult to keep in check. I'm not trying to come off sounding harsh and apologize if I do, but you need to really keep your cool and like many others cool off before you type a post. There are life cycles for all programs, but not for WB, AH, or WW2Online if it ever comes out and makes the cut. Lets face it, in a game where the developers are dedicated 130% to the program and ensuring the customers satisfaction you are going to see lots of changes. They could of very well delayed 1.04 for a few more weeks and tried to re-tweak torque, inverted lift and the apparent side-slip climb. Instead they released it, so we can find out more bugs than their limited resources would be able to dig up. What's this mean? We are actively participating in MAKING the game the best on the market, we aren't idly standing by playing it. That's why I'm here anyway, have fun and guarantee in my future I have some really wickedly realistic game to play and hopefully it will be developed by HTC. If you want a completely done and finished game go and buy a boxed game and they aren'te ven finished. Buggy, limited support from developers and sometimes they take a few patches to run. No point in getting all upity over something they are working feverishly to repair, is there? Tell me a time you saw a lot of guys here with proof something was wrong and it wasn't fixed?
:-)
-SW
-
Eloquently stated AKSeaWulf.
AH is the finest WW2 sim available and you have in HTC a developer that does this because they share our passion.What better situation can you ask for to ensure that your favorite hobby will always be scrutinized and adjusted as need be to ensure it remains on par with the current hardware abilities.Imagine our AH a year from now.I bet the FM as well as the graphics make yet another quantum leap (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Cheers
By-Tor
-
AH is the finest WW2 sim available and you have in HTC a developer that does this because they share our passion.
Don't kid yourself by-tor. AH is a BUSINESS and HTC will do anything, and I mean ANYTHING, they feel they have to do to get the revenues they need.
If that means FMs that resemble X-Wings more than WW2 aircraft - they'll do it.
Wouldn't you, if it were your business?
-
I'm very disappointed in the flight characteristics of the Hog, I actually have to push DOWN on the stick to get it to land, no sinking feeling...but as mentioned, HTC is not done yet with the FM's of individual A/C.
-
I used to pride myself on just being able to take off and land the Typhoon. Now, it practically takes off and lands by itself.
Please put the torque back into my Tiffy's FM!
-
not to mention my inverted climb over ripsnorts cockpit for a few mins with a full load bombs rockets and fuel... i sustained a inverted climb for over a min before i got out of formation and rolled her over.
Also were doing inverted fly through on BH's for fun...
------------------
WarChild
VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~
"Where's the Charmin!"
-
Originally posted by WarChild:
not to mention my inverted climb over ripsnorts cockpit for a few mins with a full load bombs rockets and fuel... i sustained a inverted climb for over a min before i got out of formation and rolled her over.
Also were doing inverted fly through on BH's for fun...
Ah, yes, thanks for mentioning that as well, another odd trait, full bombs, rockets, 100% fuel, give her full throttle, just alittle rudder, and hands off the stick, she flys all by herself taking off... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) (Yes, auto-takeoff is disabled)
-
One of the reasons that takeoff was difficult in older versions is that you were very far out of trim. If combat trim is turned on, then all of the things observed above would be true IMHO.
Make sure you turn off combat trim and then try these tests again after trimming the plane for 200 IAS... I'll bet you see a difference.
------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs http://www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
(http://tuweb.ucis.dal.ca/~dconrad/ahf/lepht.gif)
"My P-47 is a pretty good ship, she took a round coming 'cross the Channel last trip.
Just thinking 'bout my baby and lettin' her rip, always got me through so far."
- Steve Earl
-
Originally posted by Jekyll:
Don't kid yourself by-tor. AH is a BUSINESS and HTC will do anything, and I mean ANYTHING, they feel they have to do to get the revenues they need.
If that means FMs that resemble X-Wings more than WW2 aircraft - they'll do it.
Wouldn't you, if it were your business?
That could be true in general if we did not know HT and Pyro personally over the period of 6+ years.
If they ever wanted to just make money with a mass-appeal simplified arcade flight game, they could have just dumbed down the existing FM in some arenas and sold it for $10/months, like iEN did.
In fact they may still do that while continuing to make the most realistic flight sim for the dedcated hard-core simmers at $30/month.
But if they ONLY wanted to make money, they could have spent much more time over the last year on the mass-apeal features like eye candy, planeset, etc. instead of flight modelling and damage realism.
The padlock would have been the first feature along with many SA crutches present in the other lite sims.
Those guys are definitely interested in the most realistic flight sim possible. Of course they have to pay for it and feed their families. So there will be compromises.
There will also be errors introduced and corrected that affect the realism.
miko
-
I did not read the entire thread, but yesterday I witnessed an F4U-1C take off.
He took off right after and airshow. He was stacked in line with some Cessna's etc, and an AT-6. From what I could tell this pilot had no great deal of problems taking off. Granted this plane was light, but his roll and lift off could not be distinguished between any of the other planes that previosly luanched. All planes were using a downwind take off for some reason, probably due to traffic and IMO the F4U roll may have been shorter than the rest.
------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew
"Who's next?"
Naso
-
I dont know where this thread came from or where its going but the weenie aspect of takeoffs is disappointing. I have found 1.04.1 to be a genuine enhancement for me once Im in the air but takeoffs are weak. My p51 just lumbers down the runway and gives no sensation of weight. Dont use flaps just up up up.....away.
I hope they give me my caution back. Funny thing is landing still takes some effort but takeoffs are wussed out.
Yeager
-
If the purpose of these changes were merely plability issues, we would not have spent the time we did on it. That could've been done in a couple days with the old model and not sucked up over a month of valuable development time that we did spend on it.
Some people thought the old model didn't feel right. Some people think the new model doesn't feel right. That's always going to be the case because it's not a real plane and everybody has different expectations as to how things should feel. The difference between then and now is that some people were also showing us real flaws in the model in either mathematical terms or divergence from good available data. We can't model things so they feel right to everyone, but we can try to keep our numbers on target. If somebody can show us an error in what we're doing, then we'll do our best to fix it. That's what happened.
Torque has actually increased in the new model, but it is also counteracted by other forces that we've better modeled. It's why aileron trim is not usually needed much in real planes.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
[This message has been edited by Pyro (edited 09-18-2000).]
-
Anecdotally, the Corsair was such a beast at low speed that one had to "pre-trim" a large amount of rudder trim on the landing approach, just in case he had to go around. Failure to do so would create a situation where the pilot could not counteract the torque in the event of full power at low speed.
The torque, as modeled, is easily counteracted with only mild rudder application. The "feel" is lacking IMO. That's OK if this is playability-driven, but probably needs more work if you're looking for a more realistic feel.
NOT anecdotally, every propeller-driven plane I've flown has required a moderate, but definitely noticeable, amount of rudder on takeoff to counteract the torque. The sim requires rudder, but just a touch. Again, the "feel" is a bit lacking IMO.
And of course, the ability to climb indefinitely at 1000+ fpm while banked 90 degrees indicates an underlying error somewhere.
But overall IMO the new FM is more "believable" than the prior version.
--jedi
------------------
-
I agree, Jedi..I need more rudder in the 100hp Beagle Pup (With tricycle U/C) I fly than I do in the F4U.
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"
-
jedi
>>Anecdotally, the Corsair was such a beast at low speed that one had to "pre-trim" a large amount of rudder trim on the landing approach, just in case he had to go around. Failure to do so would create a situation where the pilot could not counteract the torque in the event of full power at low speed.<<
I thought we had put this puppy to bed long ago. Failure to trim the rudder has nothing to do with pilots losing control due to torque...improper throttle technique combined with inadequate rudder and aileron input/effectiveness at slow speeds does.
My F4U checklist says nothing about 'pre-trimming' the rudder, nor does the go-around section mention rudder trim.
It may have been a technique that some used...but it sounds somewhat like pulling your car into the garage with the brakes partially on and your the engine above idle just in case you have to stop suddenly.
Andy
[This message has been edited by Andy Bush (edited 09-18-2000).]
-
Just like the WBs planes eh Daff?
Sharky
-
The Hawg was a Navy plane, for those that know, thats all that needs to be said about how good it was at low speed.
PC
-
Torque is probably modelled accurately as far as the propeller counteracting engine torque. If you consider
Horsepower = Torque (lbsft) * rpm / 5252
and that the average fighter can get some 40000 ft.lbs of torque from it's ailerons at 100 mph, it's not difficult to compensate. Very little trim would be needed, as Pyro said. However,
A propeller, when suddenly accelerated by use of the throttle, will cause torque.
That is
T = moment of inertia * angular acceleration
Take a 4m diameter prop, with mass of 300 kg
Moment of inertia ~ 1/12 * 300 * 4^2 = 400
Accelerate it from 1000 rpm (105 rad/sec) to 3000 rpm (315 rad/sec) in 1 second, angular acceleration = 210 rad/sec/sec
Now torque = 84000 Nm = 61850 lbsft of torque which exceeds the aircraft's ability to compensate at 100 mph!
[This message has been edited by wells (edited 09-19-2000).]
-
Hell, I need more rudder in our Bergfalke III (glider) than in the F4U!
Just kidding. Seriously, though, taking off is pretty easy now, but climbing after takeoff can be quite a challenge with a heavy plane. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
My main wish is that the P-51 get slightly less powerful brakes. It's the only plane that tips over on its nose with full brakes, even if you have the stick in your gut.
------------------
Rickenbacker (Ricken)
-ISAF-
the Independent Swedish Air Force
-
Originally posted by miko2d:
..... If they ever wanted to just make money with a mass-appeal simplified arcade flight game, they could have just dumbed down the existing FM in some arenas and sold it for $10/months, like iEN did. In fact they may still do that while continuing to make the most realistic flight sim for the dedcated hard-core simmers at $30/month. But if they ONLY wanted to make money, they could have spent much more time over the last year on the mass-apeal features like eye candy, planeset, etc. instead of flight modelling and damage realism. The padlock would have been the first feature along with many SA crutches present in the other lite sims.....
Nope, sorry partner.
Back in the late 60's, I once had a Sales Manager who's region was burning cash and not profitable sit in front of me and say, "If we lower our prices, we'll make up our losses through volume." (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) He actually believed that revenue increases through price reductions was the secret to a successful business. Needless to say, he found other employment with our competition to help them out.
The following was part of a lengthy discussion thread on this topic and was extracted from our flight sims on-line business focus discussion group.
======================================
Dale Addink (Hitech) said in a public investor's news release:
Start of quote
"10,000 to 20,000 dogfight fanatics to pay $30 per month to play the game. (Ten thousand customers will give the firm $2 million in yearly profits)."
"This year's goal is to sign up 2,500 customers. That will put the company past break even by the end of the year, he says."
End of quote
......they should be break even (cash neutral) by the end of December. So, what happens if before then, iEN sets a $15.95 flat rate and/or Playnet makes a tactical pre-emptive marketing move to help HTC's cash drain, by pre-announcing their own flat rate levels of somewhere between $9.95 and $19.95 per month?
I would assume that to prevent growth from stalling out, that HTC would be forced to drop prices and if they went down to $15.95/month, then they'd need over 5,000 sign-ups just to get back to break even, not counting any incremental equipment costs needed to support the higher numbers.........
=======================================
miko2d, the real answer IMHO, is that the product subscription fees are never going to provide enough revenue to achieve profitability for an on-line business which provides ONLY virtual flight sim entertainment. The secret to unlocking true sustainable profitability is through value added selling, over and above the base subscriptions (ie: Vanity Plates), plus diversification into other genres of on-line games. WWIIOL has the right idea, but wow!!!....35 plus people and no revenue stream until next year has to give one a great pucker factor if you're an investor in Playnet. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Anyway, OT and food for another discussion in the appropriate forum.
Regards,
Badger
Looking for a different kind of environment to discuss your favorite on-line flight simulator?
http://www.egroups.com/group/flightsimsonline (http://www.egroups.com/group/flightsimsonline)
-
I stand by my statement. The Corsair was able to generate enough torque, yaw, and roll moment that you'd need significant rudder input to counteract full power application. Rudder/aileron trim would make it easier to apply this input and possibly help you to prevent the onset of roll inertia that you couldn't stop before becoming inverted (and dead) at low altitude.
I can post the account of how a REAL Corsair pilot made approaches to the ship, if necessary. Somehow, I find the fact that the F4U manual makes no mention of trimming unconvincing. NONE of the flight manuals of the airplanes I've flown mention using the trim. I kinda think they just assume anyone with wings understands what the trim is for.
--jedi
[This message has been edited by jedi (edited 09-19-2000).]
-
Otherwise right or wrong, the flight "game" with the most pronounced torque effect of shoving the throttle back and forth is FA2.
-
jedi
>>I can post the account of how a REAL Corsair pilot made approaches to the ship, if necessary. Somehow, I find the fact that the F4U manual makes no mention of trimming unconvincing. NONE of the flight manuals of the airplanes I've flown mention using the trim. I kinda think they just assume anyone with wings understands what the trim is for.<<
Please post that reference...it should be of interest to us all.
BTW...what airplanes have you flown? I don't have any experience with WW2 fighters. Other than jet fighters and airliners, all I've flown are the C-172 and Piper Cub, neither of which has much in the way of significant torque.
As for your comment about folks not understanding trim, the various threads here make that abundantly clear.
Andy
-
One of the back issues of (I believe)Flight Journal has a write up by Ethell when he flew the F4U, I don't recall him squeaking alot about the torque, I'll have to do some research...
I could ask the real CO of VMF-323, he resides in Florida, talked to him via email, I'm sure he wouldn't mind responding to any F4U questions, I would like a list of things to ask him so he doesn't have to para-phrase himself...
-
As requested:
Maj Hugh Elwood (VMF-212)--
"The Corsair was a hell of a thing to fly, particularly if you'd started on a much lighter aircraft. It had so much torque that when you poured the coals to 2800 rpm, it would try to walk away from you. You had to have full rudder on there in order to keep control. The F4U had a very large cockpit, so much so that the shorter guys could not hold their rudder all the way in to counteract the torque. Some pilots used to fly with a cushion--one of my pilots, Lt Hap Langstaff, used to have two of them in there in order to be able to push the rudder pedals further forward."
Account of W. Buckner Hanner (VMF-123)--
"...All landings, whether actually on an aircraft carrier, or at a shore base, were executed in a carrier-approach style for practice and consistency. A nose-high descent in a left-hand turn brought the Corsair to its final approach. On the base leg of the pattern, just before turning on final approach, Hanner remembers looking out to the left to make sure no other traffic was still on the runway. Then, when the big-nosed F4U turned onto final, the runway was obscured from view, leaving Hanner to pray "God, I hope there's nobody on that runway!" During the pattern approach, Hanner would be cranking in a total of 20 degrees right rudder trim, balancing this with a rudder pedal offset to the left. But the 20-degree input was vital, he says, in the event of a go-around, whether at sea or on land. Without that right rudder trim, the massive addition of power needed for a go-around could very well put the Corsair on its back in a vicious--and usually fatal--roll to the left from torque."
As Wells points out above, it's possible to generate torque in excess of the ailerons' ability to counter the rolling moment at approach speed. When you add in the effects of p-factor, slipstream over the tail surfaces, and the amount of wing "blown" by the Hog's large prop, the situation is worsened. If you allow the airplane to yaw, as it will with a rapid, unchecked power application, it will induce a further rolling moment. If you then allow the airplane to start rolling rapidly, you will have to deal with INERTIA as well to DECELERATE the roll, (a factor usually forgotten, but potentially deadly) and you'll be even farther into a "torque deficit."
OTOH, if you counter your power application with the rudder, and allow the plane to accelerate before full power is achieved, you'll be able to handle it. So sure, the actual "culprit" may be improper throttle technique, but the corrective action depends on the ability to quickly achieve (and HOLD) full rudder deflection. Throw in the fact that the stall speed of a steeply banked aircraft is much higher than in level unbanked flight, and you have even more reason not to allow that roll to develop in the first place. Having enough aileron to "roll out" does you no good if the wings are stalled at 50 feet. Inasmuch as the rudder trim assists you in achieving full rudder deflection, and makes it "easier" to hold it against the various forces you're up against, it should be fairly intuitive that using the rudder trim is more than just a good "technique."
But this isn't about rudder trim, it's about torque-modeling. I'm convinced the Hog was NOT a plane where you could just mash full power with NO rudder on takeoff roll OR at 100 mph on approach and watch it fly blithely along undisturbed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) I'm convinced its real pilots thought much the same.
I'm not slamming the AH FM by any means, but I'm also not predisposed to defend it just because I like the sim or its developers (which I do BTW). Take the AH Hog out for a takeoff. Ram the throttle up to full. It will VERY mildly tend to the left slightly. Tapping the rudder will correct it. Now get airborne, slow to 100 mph, and slam the throttle in again. NOTHING "bad" will happen at all, with or without rudder use.
IMO that fails to capture the "character" of the airplane. If that's "acceptable" for playability reasons, I have no argument with it. OTOH, if the objective IS to get the "feel" of the individual planes "right," then IMO the torque issue needs to be revisited. Simply constructive criticism, and hopefully received as such.
I leave it to others whether the same holds true for the other planes as well.
--jedi
-
well said (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
torque is a very big feature in plane modelling and the f4u no longer has it modeled.
the massive gyroscopic effect from hamfisting in the power dosn't show up in the flight model so the f4u never has and still will not torq over onto its back at low speed when slamming in the throttle
dont get me started on the typhoons torque (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
it just hit me like a ton of bricks...
perhaps torque modelling on the planes is all good ...
yes on all of them
but the problem arises when there is no noticeable reaction from power changes.
ever used a high power drill?
you can really see the effects of the power change when you pull the trigger from just slightly rotating to full power.
this would explain a great many things if this aspect of "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" is not modelled in Aces High.
and it apears that it is not
or if it is it has been seriously dumbed down because every single engined plane can be hamfisted from no power to full throttle with no adverse effect.
-
jedi
I agree with your thoughts on torque modeling in the current AH FM...
I have pilot manuals for the F4U as well as the P-51, P-47, and P-40. They all list trim settings in their 'Before Takeoff' sections but do not mention any in the 'Before Landing' sections. But all in the 'Go-Around' sections do give maximum power settings to be adhered to as well as warnings about rapid throttle advancement.
Given the danger of inadequate rudder input during a rejected landing, I'm surprised that more is not said about rudder and/or rudder trim. The P-51 manual does mention trim in the go-around but only as a 'clean up' step after the power has been advanced.
This is not a situation unique to WW2 fighters. I now fly the DC-9 and proper rudder use is a mandatory part of our annual simulator training. The rudder must be correctly applied during an engine failure on takeoff to prevent the aircraft from potentially rolling inverted. I've had an engine fail right at liftoff on a max power, max gross weight takeoff in real life...I was pleasantly surprised to see that the 'real thing' was not as hairy as it was in the sim.
BTW...in real life, we don't trim the rudder out of alignment just because something might happen. The pilot in your second example may have as a matter of personal technique.
You might mention that bank angle is only relevant to stall speed when the pilot is using the ground as a reference...ie, he is trying to maintain altitude. Otherwise, bank angle has nothing to do with stall speed.
Andy
-
Yep Andy, I forgot about the maintaining level flight part on the bank angle thing.
As for the use of the rudder trim for landing, in the Learjet, if we had an engine out, we ALWAYS trimmed half rudder into the good engine and left it that way until on the ground, even though that might require the use of "wrong" rudder on final with the power back. You simply didn't want to have to deal with the asymmetric thrust unaided in the event of a go around. It was definitely sufficient to roll the plane inverted, and holding your leg against the yaw got pretty tiring pretty quickly.
OTOH, in the C-130, we fly engine-out with some rudder trim, but retrim to neutral once on the glidepath. In the C-21, the manual did not specify the mandatory use of rudder trim, but everyone used it. The airplane was somewhat dangerous at low speed on one engine. In the 130, the manual does not require rudder trim to be used, and some do and some don't but it DOES require it to be neutral for landing (due to the directional control problems associated with the props going into the ground range and reverse asymmetrically).
So it's probably peculiar to each airplane. If the plane was susceptible to high roll/yaw rates at low speed/high power, I suspect the pilots would've used rudder trim.
--jedi
-
Another point in the AH modelling that makes it hardly possible to "refly" one of these Go around departures from controlled flight is the throttle response ..
The AH engines rect too slowly IMHO to throttle inputs, espeically if you slam the throttle from Idle to Full...
A normal piston engine would basically react instantly with a burst of power, whreas the AH engine "spools up" kindda like a jet engine...
DW6
-
Why is everyone talking aboot me? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)