Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Shacker on November 17, 1999, 04:59:00 PM
-
Are there any plans to fix the flight model for the B-17?
Currently the aircraft requires MAp and RPM settings that are WAY above max acceptable ranges for the Wright Cyclone engine.
Max MAP 46 hg and 2500 RPMs for no more than 5 minutes.
Climb power settings are as follows
Maximum Climb 2300 RPM 38" HG Auto Rich 140 MPH
Desired Climb 2300 RPM 35" HG Auto Rich 130 MPH
These figures are straight out of the -1 for the B-17.
I won;t even post cruise, descent etc at this point cause ya gotta get the others right first. Takeoff run is excessive BTW.
The B-17 in AH will not even maintain level flight at the maximum acceptable power settings at this point.
If there are no plans to fix it let me know. I'll quit bugging you and save us both a lot of grief.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Shacker (edited 11-17-1999).]
-
RPMs not done yet.
-
FM felt OK to me but then again I've only flew right seat in a empty, real B-17G. As I remember it was like driving a big old Buick with manual steering. The A/C flew great once she was trimed out. Elevator and rudder were real responsive but man it took some muscle to bank her. But as for the power settings in AH, it's still a beta and I see a great future head for all the A/C.
------------------
Newt 487th FG
Project No. U.S.
From CK beta to Warbirds have prop will travel...
-
heck, I would think that since one could put one into a better than 450kn dive that some wing rippin'code would have priority for correction.
CRASH
-
You flew right seat in a b-17 with a MAP pressure well over 46 hg and the engines did not seize?
Ummmmm. ok
But in the real world the Wright engine will not tolerate this type of abuse without coming apart.
You want a critique.
RPMs wrong
MAP wrong.
(by the way this is how you regulate power for a piston engine airplane. By the MAP and RPM guages. The pilot operational handbook, in this case :
............B-17 G model...........
AN 01-20EG-1 Pilots Handbook of Flight Operating Instructions
AN 01-20EG-2 Erection and Maintenance Instructions
T.O. No. 02-35GC-1 Operation Instructions for the R-1820-65, 71, 73, 87, & 97 Aircraft Engines
T.O. No. 02-35GC-2 Service Instructions for the R-1820-65, 71, 73, 87, & 97 Aircraft Engines
............B-17 F Model............
T.O. No. 01-20EF-1 Pilots Handbook of Flight Operating Instructions
T.O. No. 01-20EF-2 Erection and Maintenance Instructions
T.O. No. 01-20EF-14 Handbook of Cold Weather Operation
T.O. No. 02-35GC-1 Operation Instructions for the R-1820-65, 71, 73, 87, & 97 Aircraft Engines
T.O. No. 02-35GC-2 Service Instructions for the R-1820-65, 71, 73, 87, & 97 Aircraft Engines
T.O. No. 03-10DA-6 Fuel System Operation Restrictions on Turbo Superchargers
............................. .........
Is quite specific about power settings. Further this is the FIRST thing any real pilot would notice as dead wrong and in desperate need of fixing first time they tried to take off in this FM.
Aileron response is too quick and too sharp. This aircraft does not like to roll very quickly at all.
Rudder is too responsive.
Take off roll is way too long
Lift off speed is way too high.
Stall speed is way too high (both dirty and clean)
Speed bleed at zero power needs work.
The B-17 is a relatively easy aircraft to fly. It is neither heavy nor light on the controls. It responds propmtly, but not sharply, to control inputs. At landing speeds the nose tends to get a bit heavy (120 MPH and below) but this is easily taken care of with trim. The aircraft crosses the fence at about 100 MPH and touches down around 90 MPH. Control response at these speeds tends to become sligish but managable. With proper control coordination the aircraft will bank easily and hold its bank angle quite well. The maximum safe bank angle for normal operations is 35 degrees.
Flap deployment reaction is BACKWARD (that is when you deploy the flaps the aircraft descends) In the real world airplanes tend to rise when the flaps are deployed unless the pilot slowly compensates with trim as the flaps move out of the wings.
The trim indicator is BACKWARD at least to my mind. When you roll the trim wheel of a real airplane toward the nose the airplane tends to nose down, Backward noses ya up. Aileron and rudder trim work the same way left is left and right is right. The trim indicator moves UP for down and down for up, left for right trim and right for left trim.
and those are the GLARINGLY obvious problems. There are other less noticable quite subtle problems with the FM for the B-17. I can;t comment on the fighters cause I have not looked at them and have no stick time in any of those types any way.
Are you a licensed pilot or did you just ride in the seat?
If you are a pilot. Would you not think it would be more prudent, and accurate, to FIRST get the power settings for the various flight operations correct and then adjust the remainder of the flight model to perform according to those standards? This is how commercial simulation flight models are built. They first set the aircraft performance numbvers and then after those are correct adjust the performance of the flight model to perform properly at the proper power settings.
[This message has been edited by Shacker (edited 11-18-1999).]
-
Kind of ate up with arn't you Shacker... :-)
MarkAT
-
I recon but if 'accurate' flight models are going to be 'claimed' then some attempt at accuracy needs to be made wouldn't you suppose?
-
Shacker,
What part of word "Beta" don't you understand?
How you point out what you consider is wrong is at least as important as what you are pointing out...no need to start hammering HTC for a lack of "realism" right now. You're just making yourself look foolish.
Developers tend to ignore people with 'tudes...ask me how I know...:-)
-Smut
------------------
-----
XO, The squealing Pigs
"Oink! Oink! To War!"
-
Smut you said
......"Shacker,
What part of word "Beta" don't you understand?
How you point out what you consider is wrong is at least as important as what you are
pointing out...no need to start hammering HTC for a lack of "realism" right now. You're
just making yourself look foolish.
Developers tend to ignore people with 'tudes...ask me how I know...:-)
-Smut.........."
Go back and read that post again. It was not directed to High Tech. it was directed to an individual who stated he had flown a b-17 and that the HT flight model felt okay to him.
That prompted me to point out what should have jumped out at any real world pilot with even a rudementary knowledge of operating procedurtes and limitations of the B-17 as being glaringly wrong.
People who 'claim' to be in the know and make statements that are confusing to the developers are a huge part of the problem with development of flight simulation games.
Am I a b-17 pilot? No, I do have four hours time in one. I have not ever taken a B-17 off the ground although I did follow through on the controls. I have had complete control of the aircraft from the time of departure until just before landing. I did not land the aircraft either, to either take off or land would have required a good deal of dual time with a CFI rated in the B-17 and I was not prepared to undertake either the time or the cost of such a project. What I did do is:
Engine start procedures
engine run-up and checks
Departure and climb out (climb power settings)
Cruise and cruise power settings.
Enroute climb
enroute descent
approach to power on stall
approach to power off stall (engines throttled back per procedural manual)
S turns over terrain
engine out operations (engine three power back and feathered, engine three brought on line and four powered back and feathered)
Descent and approach to landing
The comment about requiring "a lot of muscle' to bank the airplane is also troublesome. If the aircraft is properly coordinated in a turn it is quite easy to bank and hold at that angle and does NOT require a lot of effort.
These kinds of statements are misleading and detrimental to the finished product. The original post was to High Tech yes. This is the second time I have asked that same question in the last three months (first time was about 30 minutes after the release of the beta). All I want to know is do they intend to fix the problems with MAP and RPMs. I did not ask someone to claim to have 'flown' a B-17 and cloud that issue and I responded to that.
Have a nice day
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Oh yeah and as to do I understand what 'beta' means. You bet I do. Been beta testing for a good while. Fact is I have a form that I use to beta test aircraft. (it probably won;t format correctly since it is is in word 97 but here ya go. (BTW I am a commercial pilot with nearly 5000 hours)
BETA TEST LOG (Aircraft)
Aircraft tested_________________Date__ ________________
FUNCTIO YES NO Mouse
Controllable?
Y / N
N/A Rating / Outstanding / Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor
O E G F P
# of test
Comments
Does This Simulation Have?
Throttle Levers
Mixture Levers
Prop Levers
Fuel Flow Levers (Usually Turboprop AC only)
Landing Gear Lever
Flap Lever
Cowel Flap Control
Turbo Charger Control
Waste Gate Control
Carbeurator Heat Control
Anit Ice Equipment
De Icing Equipment (Ususally Military Aircrafrt Only)
Internal Light Controls
External Light Controls
External Power
Internal Power
Voltage Meters
Charge Meters
Generators
Inverters
Magnetos
Magneto Controls for Each Mag
Mag controls for each engine
MAP Guage
CHT Guage
N1 Guage
N2 Guage
ITT Guage
Prop RPM Guage
Prop Torque Guage (Usually Turboprops Only)
Eng RPM Guage
Fuel Quantity Guage
Fuel Flow Guage
Fuel Tank Selector Control
Fuel CROSS FEED Selector
Fuel Pump Controls
Fuel BOOST pump Controls
Fuel Primer Controls
Engine Temp Guage
Exhaust gas Temp Guage
Oil Pressure Guage
Oil Temperature Guage
Vaccume Guage
Bleed Air Bands (Turbine Aircraft Only)
Magnetic Compass
Clock
Turn Timer
Turn Coordinator
Slip Skid Indicator
'Ball Turn and Bank' Indicator
Gyro Compass
RMI Indicator
Attitude Indicator
HIS Indicator
Altimeter
Kolosman Window in altimeter
VSI Guage
Airspeed Indicator
ILS
VOR
DME Indicator
NDB
Autopilot
Tacan
GPS
Weather Radar
Storm Scope
Wheel Brakes
Differential Wheel Brakes
Elevator Trim Tab
Aileron Trim Tab
Rudder Trim Tab
STARTUP and RUNUP Procedures
Does the enginestart procedure follow the POH?
Can engines be started seperately?
If improper start sequence is used will engines still start?
Will Damage result?
Do engine instruments respond properly to start sequence?
EGT?
Oil Press?
Oil Temp?
MAP?
RPM?
Prop RPM?
Prop Torque?
N1?
N2?
ITT?
EGT?
When Carb Heat is applied does engine resppond properly?
Does Exercising Turbos cause a rise in MAP?
Does Exercising Props cause a change in RPMs?
Do Rapid Pitch Changes Seem to cause damage to systems during Runup?
Do Pitch Changes cause a change in Prop Torque?
(Ususally Turboprop Only)
Can Props be feathered at full throttle?
If yes does damage result?
When props are feathered with brakes off will aircraft move along the ground?
When Beta Pitch is applied will aircraft Move backward along the ground? (Turbo Prop Only)
Is Beta Pitch Operating range set according to the POH?
What happens if Beta pitch is applied 'out of range'?
When Thrust Reversers are deployed will aircraft move backward along the ground? (Turbine Only)
Are differential brakes effective during taxi operations?
If Engine Oil Temperature exceeds recommended ranges does engine damage result?
If Engine Oil pressure drops below recommended ranges does engine damage result?
Can maximum recommended power settings be exceeded?
Do guages properly reflect the result of a power setting that is too high?
Oil Temp rise
Oil Press Rise/Fall if oil seals fail
EGT rise
N1rise
N2 rise
ITT rise
MAP rise
CHT rise
Fuel Flow rise
Will wheel Brakes hold the aircraft stationary during engine runups?
Does the generator accurately indicate the turning on and off of systems?
Momentary drop in voltage on system on?
Momentary Rise in voltage on system off?
Can control surfaces be viewed from the cockpit when checking proper operation?
Do control surfaces appear, visually, to deflect the proper amount?
Taxi and Takeoff procedures
Will the aircraft make a 360 deg turn on the ground in accordance with the POH?
Does the rudder turn the aircraft as it should during taxi operations?
Do the wheel brakes apply and release as they should?
If taxied too fast will the aircraft exhibit adverse handling characteristics?
Does the aircraft STOP in the stated distance at the stated speed during ground operations?
On takeoff does the aircraft accelerate to takeoff speed in the stated distance?
For Single Engine Aircraft is right rudder pressure required to maintain proper runway alignment?
Does the aircraft require flap application for normal takeoff?
Is this consistent with the POH?
Does the aircraft rotate at the proper speed?
Does the aircraft establish proper climb and airspeed at the recommended power settings?
If equipped with retractable gear does the airspeed rise as the gear is retracted?
If flaps were required toes the airspeed rise as the flaps are retracted?
Is this a gradual rise?
Is this a sudden rise?
Does the nose of the aircraft pitch down as flaps are retracted requiring the pilot to re-trim?
Is this pitch change gradual?
Is this pitch change sudden?
Are trim settings easily maintained?
Are they too coarse?
Are they Too Fine?
Does the trim indicator, if equipped, properly reflect the direction of the trim deflection?
Climb / Cruise Observations
Does Climb performance deteriorate as the aircraft gains altitude?
Is this change in performance consistent with the POH?
Do the instruments properly reflect this difference?
MAP
CHT
EGT
RPM
Prop Torque
Prop RPM
Outside Air Temp?
Are adjustments to the engine, prop, and mixture settings required to maintain proper instrument readings? (Engine power and Fuel flow only for Turbines, Additionally Prop Torque for Turboprops)
Does the settings required accurately reflect data in the POH?
Can the simulated aircraft exceed it's service ceiling?
What effects are noted on the following when this happens?
MAP
RPM
Prop RPM
EGT
CHT
Fuel Flow
Oil Temp
Oil Press
Will the aircraft level at desired cruise altitude ?
If yes does the aircraft hold it's speed or does speed gradually increase?
When entering cruise by the proper method. Does the aircraft settle into the desired altitude at the desired speed?
Do the power, prop and mixture settings accurately reflect data in the POH?
Can the aircraft be trimmed to fly virtually hands off in calm air at cruise altitude?
If equipped with an autopilot will the AP maintain altitude?
Will the Ap maintain heading?
Is the Ap course adjustable?
If yes does the AP turn the aircraft in the proper manner?
If Altitude is Ap adjustable does the AP bring the AC to the proper altitude and hold it?
If the Ap is speed adjustable does it hold the speed properly?
If a 'fully coupled' system can the aircraft be flown properly using only the AP for normal cruise , climb and descent operations?
Will the Ap properly track a VOR signal?
Will the ap properly intercept a localizer signal?
Will the AP hold the runway center line?
Will the Ap hold the glideslope?
Descent and Landing
Does the aircraft accelerate when the nose is lowered?
Is this acceleration rate appropriate for this aircraft?
With proper power settings will the aircraft descend as stated in the POH?
Does airframe damage result from overacceleration of the aircraft?
Is this damage proper?
Will the flaps deploy at speds above that recommended in the POH?
If yes does damage result from such a deployment?
Is the damage consistent with what would be expected at that speed?
Can the landing gear be deployed above the recommended ranges?
If yes, does damage to systems occurr when this is done?
Is the damage consistent with what one could expect by deploying the gear at that speed?
Do the flaps deploy as stated in the POH?
Correct number of settings?
Correct angle and % for each setting?
Does flap deployment cause the nose to picth up?
Is the change gradual?
Is the change sudden?
Dxoes flap deployment cause the aircraft to decelerate?
Is this change in speed consistent with what would be normally expected?
Does the deployment of the landing gear cause the aircraft to nose down slightly?
Is this change gradual?
Is this change sudden?
Does Gear deployment cause a loss of airspeed?
Is this loss consistent with what would normally be expected?
Does the aircraft respond properly to power setting changes when gear and flaps are deployed?
Is the pilot required to re-trim the aircraft after deployment of flaps and / or gear?
Will the aircraft maintain the stated rate of descent at the power settings stated in the POH?
Can the aircraft, with proper power management, be 'flown' onto the runway?
Can a full stall landing be made in this aircraft?
Is touchdown speed appropriate for this aircraft per the POH?
Does the aircraft, when properly landed, exhibit a tendancy to bounce more than it should?
Does the aircraft decelerate as stated in the POH?
Does full back pressure on the controls accelerate this slowing of the aircraft?
Do thrust reversers work properly?
(Turbine ONLY)
Does Beta Pitch work properly?
(Turbo props ONLY)
Do the wheel brakes slow the aircraft smoothly?
Are there any adverse effects noted if wheel brakes are applied above the recommended speed?
Can differential brakes be applied above taxi speed?
Does the aircraft ground loop or crash if one differential brake is applied on landing?
Will the aircraft ground loop or crash if the rudder is deflected at high speed during landing?
Radical In flight manuvers
Does damage result from full or abrupt control movements at speeds in excess of those recopmmended in the POH?
Can the aircraft be rolled?
Can the real world counterpart perform this manuver?
Can the aircraft be looped?
Can the real world counterpart perform this manuver?
Are power settings proper?
If placed in a high banked very tight turn will the aircraft decelerate rapidly to stall speed?
Will it loose significant altitude if opposite rudder is not applied during this manuver and prior to the stall?
Does the Aircraft stall toward the low wing?
Just prior to entering this stall do the tail surfaces lose all control authority?
Will proper stall recovery, neutral controls and gradual back pressure as speed rises, bring the aircraft out of the stall?
Does damage result from this manuver?
Is this consistent with the POH? (Non aerobatic aircraft should sustain at least minimal damage as a result of this)
Are power on stalls entered properly as outlined in the POH?
Are power off stalls entered properly as outlined in the POH?
If placed in a high speed descent and rapidly recovered will the aircraft sustain significant damage?
Can the aircraft be places in a sideslip?
Can the pilot cause a significant altitude loss with proper cross control in a sideslip?
Does the aircraft recover from this configuration properly?
If landed in a 'slip' configuration does the aircraft crash?
If landed HARD will the landing gear fail?
If landed gear up will the aircraft crash?
If landed at a significantly banked attitude will the aircraft crash?
Can the aircraft make a proper two minute turn?
Can the aircraft be manuvered and landed using an instrument approach plate and following the procedure turns?
Will the aircraft make 'S' turns in the appropriate distance and time?
Will the aircraft perform procedure turns and hit the proper headings?
If the rudder is deflected in flight will the aircraft skid?
Does the aircraft 'cross control' appropriately?
Other observations
Does the magnetic compass turn in the proper direction when turning the aircraft?
Does the magnetic compass accurately reflect magnetic deviation?
Is there a compass card for this instrument and if so is it correct?
Does the Gyro Compass turn in the proper direction when turning the aircraft?
Does the gyro compass accurately reflect gyro drift?
Is the Gyro compass adjustable?
Does the attitude indicator properly reflect the aircraft's attitude?
Do the VSI and altimeter readings match properly?
Do engines stop if magnetos are turned off?
Can the ignitors on a turbine aircraft be turned off without causing the engine to stop?
Does the VOR guage accurately track VOR signals?
Does the NDB guage accurately track radio signals?
Does the localizer accurately reflect runway center line?
Does the glideslope accurately reflect the proper glide slope?
Is the ILS signal line of sight only?
Does changing the Kolosman reading on the altimeter properly reflect changes in the aircrafts current altitude?
Does the turn coordinator accurately reflect a standard turn?
Does the turn coordinator / turn and bank indicator accurately reflect a skid or slip?
Does the ball deflect properly and to the correct side of the guage?
Is slip roll coupling properly modled?
Is adverse yaw properly modled?
Is torque properly modled?
Is helical propwash properly modled?
Is 'P' factor properly modled?
Is weather adjustable in this sim?
If yes does the aircraft react properly to cross winds?
Is course drift and deviation correct?
Will the aircraft fly a proper true heading and end up where it should?
If turbulence is modled does the aircraft respond appropriately to air turbulence?
If density altitude is modled does the aircraft perform according to the POH at the various DA's?
Will the aircraft take off at DA above those specified in the POH?
Does the aircraft respond properly to changes in wind direction and speed?
Does the aircraft respond properly to wind gusts?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Shacker (edited 11-18-1999).]
-
Ding Ding Ding!!!!
We have a winner!
That was the longest post Ive ever seen, and I even "Read It!"
Seriously. I think Shack (can I call you Shack?) made some good points, and didnt read it as a kick in the groin to HTC.
Wanna see a REALLY fluffied up 17, go fly Full Realism in AW. The 17 can out turn virtually ANY fighter, and does vertical moves like no other.
When we asked the developers about it they said
"Those big wings produce A LOT of lift"
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
No need to post a wall 'o text, I ain't impressed by it. It's a rather tired internet dodge.
What I was responding to was not your original post, but this one:
------SHAKER WROTE:
I recon but if 'accurate' flight models are going to be 'claimed' then some attempt at accuracy needs to be made wouldn't you suppose?
------END QUOTE.
Sorry, I see this as a slam at HTC. YMMV.
Please don't bore me with your "credentials", and I won't do the same.
-Smut
-
I tried air warrior once.
once
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Go ahead and bore me some more you are already on a roll
For your edification perhaps I should have said
"I recon but if 'accurate' flight models are going to be 'claimed' then some attempt at
accuracy needs to be made wouldn't you suppose?" (and then gone on to say, for those who are looking for something to complain about)Folks making statements that are at odds with the facts does not help High Tech to further their goal in this area.
Understand now??????
BTW that "wall of text" might just help someone who has never beta tested make some quantative analysis about what they are seeing and report same to High Tech.
out
[This message has been edited by Shacker (edited 11-18-1999).]
-
LOL dude, I know more about beta testing flight sims than you'll ever know.
Keep 'em coming, I need a good laugh!
Hahaha!
-Smut
-
Oh goody
<nukes popcorn and pulls up a seat>
Lookit the baby seals slap each other (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
LOL Curly
Granted I haven't been as visable here as elsewhere...but suffice to say I know a thing or two about game development, hard core flight sims, testing, and flame wars.
If ole Shacker wants a whooping, I'll be happy to do it...within Pyro's limits, of course. :-)
-Smut
------------------
-----
XO, The squealing Pigs
"Oink! Oink! To War!"
-
Oh Now I understand This thread is about
Drum roll
YOU!
To witt:
"Developers tend to ignore people with 'tudes...ask me how I know...:-)"
............
"Sorry, I see this as a slam at HTC. YMMV.
Please don't bore me with your "credentials", and I won't do the same."
............
"I know more about beta testing flight sims than you'll ever know."
............
I really like that last one about you. Hell you don't even know who I am. For all you know I could be Bruce Artwick (I'm not but you have no way of knowing that) In case you don't know Bruice Artwick is THE pioneer in PC flight simulation.
Your ego is oughtweighed only by your arrogance. Therefore, I will leave with my original question still unanswered.
Good luck to you and have fun in the arcade.
....................
High Tech you may feel free to delete my username I won't be needing it any longer
out
[This message has been edited by Shacker (edited 11-18-1999).]
-
Shacker-
You let one person run you out after one thread? You aren't going to enjoy very many flight sims that way... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
Too funny...
Guess you haven't spent a lot of time in the online combat flight sim world, huh "Shacker"? Bahahaha...
You said:
"I really like that last one about you. Hell you don't even know who I am. For all you know I could be Bruce Artwick (I'm not but you have no way of knowing that) In case you don't know Bruice Artwick is THE pioneer in PC flight simulation."
----end quote
I know who Bruce is, and I don't consider him a pioneer in the combat flight biz. Sorry. Oh, and you have no idea who I am either. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
You were the one posting the wall 'o text replies, including your so-called "checklist" for the games you beta test for...uh huh. Well, frankly I wasn't impressed, because that sure doesn't look like any kind of real game testing checklist I've ever seen...and my point which so clearly offended you is that since I happen to do this for a living, you can't BS me.
So go ahead, pack up your marbles and run home to momma; fact is, you tried to act like a big shot and got caught. A shame really, as lost in all your postering and walls of text were some legitment issues.
-Smut
------------------
XO, The squealing Pigs
"Oink! Oink! To War!"
-
That was a checklist for AIRCRAFT performance. Not eye candy etc etc.
Talk to a few Air Force folks or Navy fliers.
First rule of thumb is you MUST be able to effectively FLY the aircraft to employ it as an effective weapons platform.
Most real world Aces were first and foremost first rate pilots.
I have been through just about every 'combat' flight simulation out there. Lot of eye candy. Not a lot of flight model. I also have some few hours in the real thing (military combat flight simulations). Not many cause I was not a military pilot but had friends who were. The differences are glaring and obvious. I asked a few of the guys who built the things how they did it. You know the folks from Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc? Their overwhelming response was:
You take the operating manuual for the plane and plug it in to the physics model. Get the numbers right, then have a few pilots test it and tell you what is and isn't right, fix that. adjust the dials to reflect the correct numbers and then plug in the rest of the stuff.
Of course with your vast knowledge you already knew all that right?
Anyhow you are correct I do not know who you are. Therefore, I will not make such rash statements about your knowledge of flight simulations that you have made about mine.
I have run across a couple folks with similar attitudes. One of em, in my personal opinion (and that of a LOT of other folks) nearly killed one of the best flight sims made because he was unwilling to listen to people who really do fly airplanes and was willing to only use the physics of design having never flown himself.
good day
[This message has been edited by Shacker (edited 11-18-1999).]
-
Shacker,
Please forgive me. I certainly meant no harm in my post and didn't expect the response you got. I wasn't necessarily trying to flame you but it looks like I inadvertently (sp) did. You are certainly correct to point out things you find that are not realistic enough to suit you.
As much of the b-17 fan that I am I have never flown in one. I only walked through one once. I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination. I am also fairly new at alpha testing and the only thing I have to compare what HTC has built is over 40 years of association with ac of different types. Yes I flew a few, never got my ticket because of the expense and I wanted a family.
There are some less than realistic aspects to all these aircraft I suppose, and there comes a time when one has to decide how much realism is really important to the sim and how much can be fudged for the sake of some reasonable playability. If they were to decide to make it as realistic as absolutely possible, I would be in hog's heaven, but I also realize that they would have trouble paying the bills.
Don't hesitate to post further comments and please find the time to fly the sim. There is a need for good buff pilots in there, those that like to do things in a realistic manner.
Again, forgive me for the flame, was trying to kid with you a bit and it backfired. My bad.
MarkAT
-
Nothin ta forgive. Didn't think ya were flaming me Mark.
Figured the smiley face was an indication of the 'tone' of the post and didn't think much else of it.
BTW I know a couple guys who are darn good pilots but never got their tickets for the same or similar reasons.
Flown every build to date and will continue. Guess I need to just e-mail my comments to HT though.
No problem atall I took your post in the manner you posted it. *g*
S!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Shacker (edited 11-18-1999).]
-
You are making one fatal error, Shacker, this is a game, not a flight simulator.
-
Shaker you are correct about the rpm and manifold beeing off. Is simply a gauge calibration.
As far as take off rolls being to long I disagree. Btw what field were you testing from? They can make a big difference.
HiTech
-
Ah a voice from the folks i been wanting to hear from.
Okay I can deal with guage calibration. No sweat, figured it was something along those lines. Any idea when it'll be slated for a fix? Really wanna wring em out but hard to tell what's going on till the guages are calibrated.
On the takeoff roll thing. Flown from mountain tops, valleys, between the mountains (down the right hand canyon on the map. Bout every field on the right side.)
In case ya don't have em here are the TO roll figiures from the dash 1
I'll give ya sea level and a couple of other alts the whole list would be sort of exhustive. If you folks need it though I'll transcribe it and mail it to you.
Engine type R-1820-97
Read head wind, wind speed Gross weight,altitude (in feet) and takeoff run (only listing hard surface runway here.)
0 - 0 - 65,000 - 0 - 3500 feet
0 - 0 - 65,000 - 3000 - 4000 feet
0 - 0 - 65,000 - 6000 - 4600 feet
So at max gross and max density altitude she will require 4,600 feet to get airborne with no headwind factor. A 20 knot headwind will reduce that significantly. I don;t know how long the runways are in AH but the time from power up, brake release to liftoff seems excessive.
If you need all the takeoff, climb and landing data from the dash 1 just holler and i'll either scan it or transcribe it and forward it to ya.
Thanks for the reply
S!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Sorry about the length of this one; but the only way to really answer this is USENET-style...
> Talk to a few Air Force folks or Navy
> fliers.
I do, quite frequently in fact.
> I have been through just about
> every 'combat' flight simulation out
> there. Lot of eye candy. Not a lot of
> flight model.
I'm curious, what sims you you consider to have a good flight model?
> I also have some few hours in the real
> thing (military combat flight
> simulations).
Me too. And a fair amount of time around the real jets (first as a maintainer, later as a flight test engineering tech). Mostly F-14's and F/A-18's.
> Not many cause I was not a military pilot
> but had friends who were. The differences
> are glaring and obvious.
Not always, depends on the sim.
> I asked a few of the guys who built the
> things how they did it. You know the folks
> from Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc? Their
> overwhelming response was: You take the
> operating manuual for the plane and plug
> it in to the physics model.
LOL, if only it were that simple. Most Dash Ones/NATOPS don't have the right data for this actually. For certain aspects, yes, but they aren't as useful as actual wind tunnel data and actual stability derivatives.
> Get the numbers right, then have a few
> pilots test it and tell you what is and
> isn't right, fix that. adjust the dials to
> reflect the correct numbers and then plug
> in the rest of the stuff.
Not "dials", try "equations". What exactly is "the rest of the stuff"? Ahh...that's the part we used to call "FM" back when I wore a uniform...
> Of course with your vast knowledge you
> already knew all that right?
And then some, actually. And here's one for you to consider...I'm not even a programmer.
> Anyhow you are correct I do not know who
> you are. Therefore, I will not make such
> rash statements about your knowledge of
> flight simulations that you have made
> about mine.
Only pointing out the holes in your "rash statements".
> I have run across a couple folks with
> similar attitudes.
Gee, you think my handle might give you a clue as to my nature? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Plus I'm even more cranky than usual because I've been crunching for the last eight months. Almost finished though...
Look dude, I have no ill will towards you. You wanna point out some issues with the B-17 flight model, fine by me...just remember, this is beta, and that Pyro has already said the current engine management systems were not complete. You can be helpful by posting your references and factiods (in the proper forum, I might add) instead of asking if its going to be fixed. The answer to that has already been given.
Whether or not the "final" result matches your expectations is another matter. Game design, including flight sim design, is all about compromise. Not everyone gets that.
Damn this got long. Sorry...I know, I hate that too.
-Smut
------------------
XO, The squealing Pigs
"Oink! Oink! To War!"
[This message has been edited by Smut (edited 11-18-1999).]
-
Smut this will be the last reply I give you the courtesy of but here goes.
Where do you think the data that goes into the dash 1 comes from? Wind tunnel test and flight tests that's where.
Same for POH manuals on all aircraft. The FAA (yes they do control military aircraft as well) demands that data published in operational manuals be current and accurate for each type. Any modification to the aircraft, power plants, operating systems etc must be documented in the manual. That is why they change so frequently in the military. ANY MWO that alters the data contained in the -1 must be documented and the manual updated.
The 'other stuff' is everything BUT the flight model. But heck I recon Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and the other folks don't know what they are doing.
By dials they meant exactly what HiTech said about calibrating the instruments. The dials in the cockpit! And yes military combat sims interface with actual instruments not graphic depictions of same, as do commercial simulations for pilot training in the airline industry.
Your knowledge of these areas of simulation is truly astounding.
-
Hey Shack, thanks for the info. Now if we can just get you some stick time in some of the fighters! ;-)
-
Lol Sun Dog. Wouldn't be much help there.
No actual time in those babys. Although my dream ride is the F4U Corsair. Maybe someday if I live long enuff and my medical doens't cause me ta loose my ticket.
I could have Richard Dickenson take a look at the (51 he's got about 250 haours in one and let him critique it. Gotta call Wright Pat and get a copy of the dash 1 on it though. can't tell too much without the book in front of ya. Heck I need ta order that one anyhow.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
DID you guys think of arguments on the commute home from work?
I think HTC are gonna do it smuts way.
Build a FM and make the gauges match.
Shacker wants to build a "gauge model" and make the FM match.
BTW Where the heck are my metric gauges?! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick! Everybody knows a burrow owl... lives... in a hole... in the ground!
-
Shacker, you once again missed my point. The Dash ones do not have *enough* of the type of data needed to make a decent flight model. I never said it was incorrect or inaccurate; its just not all there. Period.
I'm done with you as well, you seem to think you know it all, so be it. After all, what do I know? I only do this for a living.
BTW, you never did answer my question: In your opinion, what combat flight simulations have a "good" flight model?
-Smut
------------------
XO, The squealing Pigs
"Oink! Oink! To War!"
-
Plug the numbers from the Dash 1 into the physics model..
I don't see a problem with that at all. You see, with your vast knowledge, I am sure you understand that they 'physics model' is where the basic flight dynamics are loacted. The remainder of the information is contained in the dash 1.
Are you just trying to be a pain in the butt or is there a point to this?
All I did was ask a question I did not ask it to enter into a debate with some self appointed expert.
I can see why you make your living beta testing. Having to interact with live people on a daily basis could well be hazerdous to your health with your 'holier than thou' attitude.
To answer your other question the flight models in MSCFS are pretty darn good. The factory models that is not the add ons. Not recommending the program just answering your question. It has it's shortcomings as well but high speed stalls, slip roll coupling, parasitic and induced drag, adverse yaw, and most other flight characteristics of airplanes are pretty darn well represented.
I dunno what CFS 2000 will look like but I do know one of the guys on the 2000 team and he has a good deal of experience in combat simulation having moved to MS from another well known combat sim designer. If he has any sway in the mix I would expect a much better and considerably more dynamic campaign in the next version but we'll have to wait and see.
out
[This message has been edited by Shacker (edited 11-19-1999).]
-
Shacker wrote:
"Plug the numbers from the Dash 1 into the physics model..
I don't see a problem with that at all. You see, with your vast knowledge, I am sure you understand that they 'physics model' is where the basic flight dynamics are loacted. The remainder of the information is contained in the dash 1."
-----end quote
It's not that easy. Again, there is simply not enough information contained within a Dash One to create an accurate flight model from scratch...no matter how good your "physics model" (which I take to mean your atmosphere model) is to start with.
You can believe this or not, your choice.
Am I trying to be a pain in the butt? I've been known to do that, but this isn't one of those times. I'm trying to educate you (and others) on some simple realities.
Lastly, I am not a beta tester (although I have done that in the past). I am a Designer for a large entertainment software developer/publisher. On my current project, I am the Lead Designer. I say this not to brag, but to clue you in to where I am coming from. Part of my job is knowing how all this really works, and knowing how to translate that into a game. Based on the sales of my last product, and how well the new one is showing, I feel pretty confident that I know what I am talking about.
-Smut
-
*wipes a tear*
I smell a friendship blossoming
pass me some of that popcorn Curly, this is better than Jerry Springer (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Hey Curly thought about buying a franchise from Juve over in WB's for a local version of "Juve's Bar & Grill"
This popcorn is ok, but his barbeque and beer is much better (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires ;) "
-
Boy Shacker take a Chill Pill. Yes I am A pilot and yes I flew the A/C. If you took notice I said FELT ok to me. But as for the power settings it's still a BETA.
Sure you have all the numbers, but have you ever flown a B-17? Do you know what it feels like in your hand or how sensitive the rudder is?
I do (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) want me to scan a page from my log?
http://www.recomnet.net/~newt/909.gif (http://www.recomnet.net/~newt/909.gif)
Thanks Fester I just now saw the line stating the 4 hours Shacker has.
------------------
Newt 487th FG
Project No. U.S.
From CK beta to Warbirds have prop will travel...
[This message has been edited by newt (edited 11-20-1999).]
-
>>Sure you have all the numbers, but have you ever flown a B-17? <<
Ummm... not taking sides or anything, But I think I remember Shacker saying that he had 4 hours in one, not taking off or landing, but all the crap in between.
One of the Caveats of posting extremely huge walls of text... no one reads em.
-
Shacker;
I am quite impressed. <Salute> Your knowledge base is quite astounding! You have certantly have fortified your claims.
(Emotion + Attitude) * Facts = Results (not always)
When I build an "Argument Fire" using a dumptruck, wood is often dumped way too fast. Wood dumped too quickly on the fire fails to catch immediately and then takes a very long time to burn. Smothering the fire out completely in some cases or creating an uncontroled wild fire in others.
Hang in there Bud. This is YOUR thread!
Good Luck (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I hope to see you up.
Mino
[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 11-21-1999).]
-
Shacker...
Your initial postings regarding the FM of the B17 are obviously valid, having been based not only on your extensive experience as a commercial pilot, but also upon your recent flight in a B17, wherein you deliberately spent four hours putting the craft through the same evaluations you later attempted to put the Aces High B17 through.
Please ignore those who have been trying to put you down, for I am sure that the knowlegeable Quality Assurance Team evaluating Aces High can recognise the difference between your valid , constructive comments and the vapid attempts at ego building posted by those who attempted to discredit your statements by citing vague references to their knowlege of aircraft design methods.
(Something actually of no interest or help to the Q.A. Team)
With the help of you and others like you, Aces High can become all that we hard core simmers hope it will be.
I too am a multi engine pilot, have time in the B17, have been a beta tester in the past and am currently an advisor to a software house producing a flight simulation that includes the B17.
I have recommended you to them as a beta tester.
Goombah
-
Shacker,
Thanks for quantifying how you came to your assessment of performance. I would love to get a fax or scan of the B17 flight info you have, particulary dealing with performance.
HiTech,
Does the current FM model "ground effect"? It seems to me it doesn't. Has anyone else made a similar, or contrary, observation?
Jarbo
of the Buccaneers
-
Shacker and Goombah!
Please stop by Bombs-Away (http://www.bombs-away.net) and join the forum discussions there. Bombs-Away is a site dedicated to B-17 Flying Fortress II - The Mighty Eighth, a sim being produced by Wayward Design.
Thanks!
Darren 'Raptor' Evans
-
Goombah
Thanks for your post. I was beginning to feel as though I was a lone (well almost anyhow) voice crying in the wilderness.
Would love ta help if I can. Have the developers get hold of me and I'll be glad ta beta the flight model for em.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Jarbo
Can't freally scan the stuff it is just too extensive.
here are some sources for the material you seek.
http://www.oldmanuals.com/ (http://www.oldmanuals.com/)
http://www.hbs.net/gcc/ (http://www.hbs.net/gcc/)
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/ (http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/)
((A note on Zeon's a good site but the video for the F-17G is done with 90 Octane fuel ((100 octane was the standard)) therefore, stated manifold pressures and RPM settings will be slightly lower than with standard fuel. Still worth looking at though))
you can also get much of the info you seek on not only the B-17 but also most, if not all, of the fighter aircraft from
The USAF Museum bookstore.
That number is
1-937-255-3284 Extension 422
Hope this helps in your quest for validation of the FMs.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Hi Raptor
Am actually following the development of tghis sim quite closely, albiet in the background.
It holds a LOT of promise.
I am looking forward to the release. The pre beta stuff is outstanding and detail looks excellent. I watched the on-line video of the pre alfa release. I gotta tell ya the cockpit procedures, what little was depicted on the video, looked first rate.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
For the love of god people, its just a game. Every one screaming like banshees over this FM error or that FM error. When Heinz Beir or (put some random US ace here) posts here that the FM is way off, then theres reason to whine like you all do, until then let it go. No one here has ANY idea how the planes your speaking of performed in world war 2, we have have specs and readouts and every other peice of innane litreture explaining what they did, but they dont take into account wear or bad oil or bad weather or defects or any adverse effects, just pretend that the 'overmodled p51' is a brand new plane and the 'undermodled b17' has the wrong kind of gas in it and has all sorts of bad replacement parts....Sorry for ranting, but it seems like no one is ever satisfied.
--Fallen@smashedupsanity.com
"You can please all the people some of the time, and you can please some of the people all the time, but you cant please all the people all the time."
-
Fallen...
You say:"No one here has ANY idea how the planes your speaking of performed in world war 2,"
You, Fallen, are very much mistaken, and have leapt to an erroneous conclusion that suited your emotional purposes.
For your information, I flew in B17's during WWII, as well as several planes of that and earlier vintage...and I can describe how they flew.
You are also, (to put it kindly, and in conformance with the rules of this forum,) very much misinformed about the difference between flight simulations and arcade games.
(You are also misinformed about the correct contraction of the words "you are"...it is not "your" as you have it, it is "you're".) (You're welcome!)
From a background of over two years as a flight simulator instructor pilot, I can tell you that it is highly important for a flight simulation to have the proper FM. (flight characteristics properly modeled) For if it does not, it, fails the definition of "flight simulator", for it does not properly simulate the way the airplane flies.
I put it this simply because I want to make sure that you can understand the difference, dispite your obvious lack of expertise in this area, and your demonstrated perchant for emotionally leaping to erroneous conclusions while you try to belittle the statements of those who DO know what they are talking about.
Goombah
[This message has been edited by Goombah (edited 12-20-1999).]
-
Alright so YOU know what your talking about. I keep forgetting that people over the age of 30 play games (simulations) but you cant, repeat _cant_ get the feeling of flying an aircraft sitting at your desk, with a joystick and pedals and a 15-20 inch monitor. Of course the FM isnt going to feel right, the entire human element has been removed, what i meant by 'its just a game' is to let them do thier thing to the FM for a few months, work out the kinks, they know what theyre doing, if it goes pay to play and you feel your not getting your moneys worth becuase you think the FM is wrong then email them about it. Or even post about it. But its a beta first of all, and i still dont think you can accurately represent an aircraft (no matter if the numbers that are inputted are the correct ones or not) on a computer screen. I think people should stop blaming HTC for not having the FM just how they want it, and start looking at the fact that they cant 'feel' the FM. Who knows, maybe if you could just instantly create a plane out of computer code and fly it around in real life, it would turn out just right, despite the alledged shortcommings.
-
Fallen..
Your posting this time was not so emotionally charged, and was "reasonably reasonable" as the expression goes, so I will try to clear up for both of us the reasons for our failure, and the failures of others like us, to agree.
You say "but you cant, repeat _cant_ get the feeling of flying an aircraft sitting at your desk, with a joystick and pedals and a 15-20 inch monitor.
With a correctly instrumented flight simulator with a correct Flight model indeed I can! Just as you or I can become immersed in a book to the point that we forget we are reading and the story unfolds in our head...Just as we can lose ourselves in watching talented actors in a play or a movie.
A pilot who is accustomed to flying on instruments has learned to ignore his physical sensations and environment and concentrate only on what his eyes show him and his brain interprets when he reads the dials on the instrument panel.
If the FM is right and the dials react correctly to the input from his stick, rudder pedals, throttle, keyboard, and mouse(His controls),he can become so immersed in his "flying" that as he makes a let down, under instrument conditions to an unfamiliar field, he forgets everything except the procedures to be followed to find that runway. It is just as when you are reading you are not conscious of turning the pages.
But if the instruments do not react correctly to his input, for the airplane simulation he is flying, his immersion is destroyed just as yours would be if you turned the page and found an old fried egg hiding the print on the next page. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Similarly if he is supposed to be in combat with another airplane and his B17 rolls like a Mustang or his Mustang wallows like a '17 when he attempts to roll it, it ruins his "GAME".
There are two major types of players of simulation "Games"... The arcade players and the serious or "hard core" "Simmers". Neither is better than the other, they just have different motivations.
The arcade players are quite satisfied with the playlike airplanes that are only symbolic, so long as they can "shoot 'em up" and shoot 'em down easily. Like golf, their challenge is to better their score each time.
The hard core simmer wants the more sophisticated challenge of pitting aircraft with known performance parameters against each other, using his skill as a pilot to get the most out of the flying characteristics of his chosen plane, in a battle against another aircraft that has equal though different flight performance, therefore must be fought differently.
Obviously if the Flight models of the two planes are not correct, "all bets are off" and there is no point, or enjoyment in playing the "game"for him.
So you see what works fine for the arcade player is a complete waste of time for the hard core simmer.
I have drawn my comparisons with very broad strokes...actually there are varying degrees of each type of player. Software houses must find a viable compromise between the two opposite types, if they hope to reallise maximum profits.
Please do not be offended if I tell you that you do not belong on this forum. You see this forum is a sounding board to tell the software house what is wrong with their game, so that they, the software house, can evaluate what they hear and strike a happy medium between the simple arcade symbolic planes and the true flight simulation.
They can turnout arcade games easily without any feedback from players of the arcade type, indeed the malls are full of that sort of game and they give much entertainment to the arcade players who drop in coins for awhile, then move on to another machine..
It is a truism that the simplicity of the arcade game causes the novelty of each game to quickly wear off.
Aces High is intended to be a longer lasting type of online game, where people will regularly "pay their dues" because they are still challenged by the scenario,skill required, and yes, the REALISM.
That is why Fallen,I say that this forum is wrong for you... your postings here on this forum are of marginal help to HiTech, while the carping, done by the "complainers" (Which you so deplore)is constructive and helpful to them.
Cordially,
Goombah.
[This message has been edited by Goombah (edited 12-20-1999).]
-
Goombah, I must say that was a very good post, and I agree with you in many ways. When I fly a plane in a sim, which unlike you, was and will never be able to fly, it is important to me to have the FM as realistic as is possible on a computer. IMO the FM quality, in many ways, is what makes or breaks a flight sim. I also liked, and was quite impressed with the way you responded to Fallen, it was not meant to be insulting to him in any way.
I too believe that the people at HTC can greatly benefit from posts, backed up by solid evidence, of a problem with a particular flight model. After all, as many have pointed out (myself included), this is a beta, therefore the time to make changes to an incorrect flight model is now. We also can't expect the game to be perfect already for the same reason. The best way to fix this is in the way that you have described above, by posting errors backed up by evidence or expert opinion.
I'm also very impressed with how far this game has come in the last few months. HTC most certainly reads the posts that we make, and has made many changes to the game as a direct result of some of those posts. I also believe that HTC does not see posts about a particular flight model being incorrect as offensive, that is the purpose of many of the forums on this message board, and these posts can only help to make the game better for all of us. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
<S> to all of those people who are trying to make this game the best that it can be.
-
Thank you, bloom25, for your keen perception.
I hope I have delivered a message providing better understanding of the source of disagreement, and of the importance of timely and constructive feedback, that will reach many others on this forum besides ourselves.
There are getting to be all too few remaining software houses who are able and willing to produce a High level flight simulation. We must therefore provide all the help and backing we can to HTC in their endeavors.
Goombah
[This message has been edited by Goombah (edited 12-20-1999).]
-
Goombah;
I too can agree with much of what you have discussed. It is however quite plain from your words that IMO you contradict the very thoughts that you have tried to get across.
For myself, you come off sounding like some kind of hypocryte. Maybe with just a handfull of "Superiority Challenged, Fogging of Clarity" thrown in. BTW, hypocrasy is describing what shall not be done, by doing that very thing that is being described.
How the hell could, would, or should you know what another person could, would or should do. Or for that matter, what form or method another person could, would or should be expressing their ideas.
You have indeed flown airplanes during WW2. I certainly respect your knowledge, your experience and most of all your sacrifices for my freedom. I make no challenges toward those arguements that you have made. I find each of them quite thought out and valid.
I can however; challenge your conscending attitude. Because, above all the facts, opionions and mishmash. AH is just a game. IMO, it is meant to be enjoyed in whatever form the person playing "The Game" chooses it to be enjoyed.
Merry Christmas Everyone!
Mino
-
The Minotaur makes an unwarranted attack for no discernable cause:"How the hell could, would, or should you know what another person could, would or should do. Or for that matter, what form or method another person could, would or should be expressing their ideas."
"Physician, heal thyself!" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
You have chosen a fitting name for yourself...If I remember Greek mythology correctly, the Minotaur was mostly "bull".... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Goombah
[This message has been edited by Goombah (edited 12-20-1999).]
-
Goombah;
LOL (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
BTW what is a Goombah? I imagined it to be something that falls, from low altitude, out of a "Turkey's A**".
The "Minotaur" was mostly man, and the victim of a cruel deed performed by an angry "Mythological God". But, this "God of Myths" I do not believe, considered himself to be a "Hardcore Simmer". Whatever that is. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
<Salute>
Mino
[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 12-20-1999).]
-
Goombah is the affectionate term for the loyal members of proud respected families.
[This message has been edited by Goombah (edited 12-20-1999).]
-
Well I know of two references to Goombah...
One I think is the name of those little mushroom headed bad guys in the mario games. hehehe
The 2nd is umm... well...
/me looks over his shoulder nervously.
Nevermind. hehehehe
-
ok, ok,
Time to end this one.
If you spent 1/10th the time on line as you do flaming each others tulips Hitech and Pyro M I G H T get some Useful feed back.
FLY, stop crying!
And a couple of you, grow up!!!!!
-
dakota
Are you addressing these remarks to me?
-
Dakota;
LOL (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Are you feeling left out of the flame war? I can think of a really tidy little flame for you, if you would like me to. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
As for the rest. I wear the shoes that fit me. I dump the gravel, out of the shoes, that irritates me. I put on my sandles and laugh, when it is laughable.
I only suspect Goombah is mature enough to do the same. I am judging this from how well thought out, the comments Goombah made were. Each comment was very valid. I certainly respect each of those ideas, I just don't necessary agree with all of them. This is the purpose of a forum, interchanging ideas.
Try it OK? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Personally, I have a problem with the "Hardcore Simmer Type A" mindset. Which IMO, often amounts to "Play the game that I want" or "Go play somewhere else".
My feet get get kind of uncomfortable, when my shoes are filled with that kind of muck.
However; I do apologize to you and to anyone else I might have offended. My idea of humor might run a tad on the dry side. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Merry Christmas Everyone!
Mino
[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 12-21-1999).]
-
Took me a bit of time to reply but here I go. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I understand what you mean by the difference in 'hardcore simmers' and 'arcade players' I personally dont fall into either of these catagories, im very interested in the world war two time period, and im interested in the people who also love the planes and tanks and nostailgia(sp?) from that time period. I really enjoy flying with you guys, and i really have alot of fun, its not easy to shoot people down, but thats not what im here for. Im also not here for the ultra realistic flight model or the super modeled guns or the physics or the eye candy. Im here mainly becuase i love flight sims and i love the people asscocaited with them. Ill admit i dont know alot of numbers about the planes, but i know that a p51 out flew about every other plane in the war. And that a zero could out turn a p38, and a 109 with its ext.guns tore the living jesus out of whatever it hit. So thats why i get kinda upset when people are complaining about the p51 'uberplane' and how easy it is to fly.
I wasnt there or anything, but every thing ive ever read said it was designed to be flown by 'new' pilots, and it was pretty darn responsive. So it kinda makes me angry when i feel that some people want 'balance' as opposed to realism. Thats what i read this post as at first glance. After you replied i felt differently and tried to explain myself as opposed to continuing to sound like an idiot. My apologies (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) I have a naturally short temper and fly off the handle way to much, my co-workers hate me for it. Hopefully you all wont.
Im very serious about this sim, but i just personally believe (arent that what bbs' are for? to post opinions and thoughts? not just tell HTC whats 'wrong' with thier game, which i think is darn near perfect btw) that HTC should focus on getting the community more 'into' the era, and setting up more believable terrian and functions than to piddle with exact flight characteristics. As long as you got a p51 looking like a p51, and all the gauges read correctly, and it flys according to the specs (may not be perfectly by the numbers, phsyics engines will do that to you.) and it has some detailed b17s to escort or some french farm houses to fly over. Then its pretty darn believable to me. Probally to most other people as well.
I may be wrong and i can accept that (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) i just think we'd be better off with an officers club in-game and flight techs running around, and more missions and more of a sense of friendship that brings you personally into the game, kinda like an RPG, than with perfect flight stats. I think people would forget about the 1 digit here or there that isnt correct if they had more a feeling of being there. Just my 2 cents.
--Fallen
PS. Much love to goombah, totally schooled me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) i felt my iq go up just reading his post.
[This message has been edited by Fallen (edited 12-21-1999).]
-
To Minotaur. Fallen and Yes, to you too dakota...
Gentlemen:
Like you two I was disturbed by the autocratic tone of dakota's posting, and I wanted to make sure that it included me before I replied.
Meanwhile, to learn where he is coming from, I read everything that dakota has posted on this forum,, visited his web site and read the information he volunteered about himself when he registered on the forum.
I am greatly impressed,now understand the reason for the tone of his posting and am no longer offended.
I see that each of you, in your own way have responded to his offensive posting, so here is mine....
All four of us have one thing in common...We are interested in seeing Aces High succeed.
The differences in opinion led, in the case of we three, to some strong expressions of our individual opinions and some intellectual sparring matches where we each threw a few verbal punches to ease the pressure, and , in some cases to bolster weaknesses in our arguments.
Mino, we had fun with our choice of "handles" didn't we!
Actually, Mino, we were both on the same side in defense of Shacker's very professional offerings, that's why I was puzzled by your(to me, unwarranted attack)
Fallen, we both needed to discover that there were grey areas between our black and white stands,your second posting caused me to evaluate my thinking.
Now, dakota...
Like you, I am of a volatile temperament, so I can understand your jumping in to the discussion, but I must admit that the same volatility caused me to react negatively to your posting.
My gut reaction?...
Who is this guy to tell me "That's enough!" and to chew me out?
*I* decide what is enough!, and NO-BODY treats me with disrespect!
So what then, do I learn about dakota, when I look into the matter??
First, he is a successful businessman, and his business is a class act. This tell me that he is intelligent, self disciplined,confident and idealistic.
Does this give him the right to be disrespectful and to butt in? ....No way!
But it does explain why he is motivated to do so.
Looking further, I find that he is an executive chef...aha! Here is why he, though a leader, hasn't learned how to lead those who do NOT have to follow!
I have known several chefs. They must deal with many types of people in their work, and in a Chef's domain he is the UNDISPUTED boss...
He HAS to be, to meet the constant pressures of producing high quality food,consistantly, in varying quantity and sufficient variety, dispite continual deadlines...and do it with workers of varying degrees of skill.
Workers of varying degrees of skill needing varying amounts of training and supervision.
Who also may be of temperaments ranging from apathetic to highly skilled;some motivated to the point where they believe they should supplant the boss. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
The most gifted and successful Chefs ARE usually autocratic and have no time to mince words or "sit down and discuss".
It goes with the territory.
So now dakota, I am no longer resentful, for I reallise that you overlooked the fact that we are not in your kitchen, and do not have to listen to a word you say, unless you convince us first that what you have to say is valid.
There are more effective ways to lead or convince people than with a bull whip.
I first learned this as a leader in the infantry when it was pointed out to me that a leader is out ahead of his men....and a bullet can come from either direction!
Those you lead must be convinced that it is in their best interests to follow, even in a totalitarian environment like the military or your kitchen.
As you no doubt know, one disgruntled employee can ruin you, dakota, if they become resentful of your lack of consideration for them.
I need not tell you the many ways your restauraunts' reputations can be ruined by just one incident of tainted or ill prepared food.
I strongly resisted the urge to make a scathing reply to your disrespectful, untactful post.
Instead, I hope that I have figuratively sat down with you and we can now reason together.
I believe we all share the common aim of helping Aces High to become the ultimate game/simulation we wish it to be.
We need to work together.
You made a mistake in thinking that you could bludgeon us into doing your bidding, when you had not established your right to lead us.
By being insulting and condescending you came off instead, as a person who was massaging his ego at our expense, rather than as someone who had valid points to make.
Your posting accomplished nothing except alienating us and possibly causing us to reject your ideas in the future.
However,your demonstrated capable performance in other areas,have proven that you have the potential to contribute much toward achieving our common aims for this simulation.
Would you like to sit down with us again, and present your viewpoints in a more respectful, reasonable way?
I can assure you that I will be receptive, for I recognise your expertise in accomplishing what you have in your businesses... Those are no checkered tablecloth, Mom and pop spaghetti joints there! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
You may rest assured that should I ever be in your area, I will not hesitate to bring guests to either of your establishments with full confidence that they will be pleased and impressed,... and I would hope to mention proudly that I know the chef!
With cordiality and respect to all.
Goombah
[This message has been edited by Goombah (edited 12-21-1999).]
-
Goombah;
LOL (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Call a doctor, I'm gonna bust my gut!
Mino
[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 12-21-1999).]
-
Hmm, got to ad my two cents to the end of this rather enlighting thread.
I've always been a flight sim fan but never been a pilot (well I've got about 14 hrs with a CFI in a cessna 172). Low and behold about a year ago my father in law's brother stopped by on his way thru Phoenix. When I found out he had 7 kills in a hog in WW2 and 2 in Korea (seagull F4U-5??) I immediately wound up AW and set him loose. Once he found the F7 view he was happy as a clam. Yup the flight model sucked..and everything was off..but once the "view" out the window was ok and he was having fun.
He had a blast..also said that almost all of the pilots on the sim were better than he faced in the real war.
Whats funny was watching him...think he flew for bout 3 hours...never got pinged..didnt light em up..but probably bout 12-15 total kills over maybe 6-7 flights...guess good SA is like riding a bike.
So my conclusion is the flight model didnt bother him..so i don't let it bother me. BUT, I'm all for as realistic a game as possible and love AH compared to AW.
-
Humble
What you don't reallise is that in the military we fly the plane we are given, for there is nothing we can do about it to change it. Therefore we do the best we can with it if we must take it into combat, dispite its shortcomings.
I flew a B29 for over half a tour that flew slightly sideways because of poorly repaired battle damage or whatever.
But that doesn't mean that I would have accepted it after testing during the design phase, and thereafter all B29's had come from the factory that way.
Beta testing is the design phase and we are all test pilots...or should be.
Goombah
PS. What is a "Hog"?
[This message has been edited by Goombah (edited 12-21-1999).]
-
I believe a 'hog' Is an F4U-D Corsair.
And I'd like to thank Goombah yet agian for enlightening me.
--Fallen
-
Fallen:
Thanks much!
I knew I had heard the term before, but couldn't place it, I was in the Army Air Force not the Navy or Marines, so I am not too conversant with the nicknames of those planes.
One of my best friends flew F4U's during that period as a Marine.
In case I don't get back to you again before then...
Have a very Merry Christmas, Fallen!
Goombah
-
Yes and once again DAKOTA wins the derby for Catching the most "FISH" with the shortest post!!!!!
Goombah,
Lighten up. I commend you for your response. A bit long winded but all the same. I hope you didn't spend to much time researching your response because It is only our pasttime, yes?
Your posts have been excellent and informative to the most part but please in the future don't scold someone for doing something that you do. In other words some people are going to question your responses and they don,t have to be wrong just because they did.
Besides, what makes you think I was talking to you?[And I am not saying this inflammatory, this time]
Yes, I would be more than happy to have you and friends as my guests. You would also find the autocratic guess was just that.
Now lets go shoot some bad guys.
dakota
[he who flies as Birdbutt]
PS How about putting a little info in your bio registry here? I always have wondered why some are so shy. [calm down, request not a flame]
[This message has been edited by dakota (edited 12-21-1999).]
-
>>>Yes and once again DAKOTA wins the derby for Catching the most "FISH" with the shortest post!!!!!<<<
Touche'
>>>Goombah,
>>>Lighten up. I commend you for your response. A bit long winded but all the same.<<<
Actually I am sometimes short of breath. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
>>>I hope you didn't spend to much time researching your response because It is only our pasttime, yes? <<<
No!, but I do not do this for a living.
Flight Simulations are not a passtime for me, they are a means to maintain my instrument flying proficiency.
If we are to continue to have improved simulator software, software houses need the input from players during development. Players should be encouraged to give it, not discouraged from contributing.
That's what got me involved on this forum, you will find, if you check my early postings here.
Shacker,though a hobbiest was doing a professional job of testing, but was being belittled by some less knowlegeable posters.
I did not want to see him become discouraged and quite contributing.
>>>Your posts have been excellent and informative to the most part but please in the future don't scold someone for doing something that you do. In other words some people are going to question your responses and they don,t have to be wrong just because they did.<<<
If you are refering to the scolding I gave you, it was because I wanted to emphasise that to accomplish your aims, you must not alienate those you are trying to convince.
However , if your aim was, as you said earlier, to catch a few fish, my remarks were indeed uncalled for...You did it just right! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I am trying to broaden the outlook of all players, for my past experience has shown that games that pretend to be flight simulations but are "dumbed down" to the point where the individual aircraft lose their identity, do not sell, even to the general public.
They lose their appeal too rapidly and then the word gets around while the first shipment is still on the shelves and the distributer's warehouse remains crammed with them.
This is part of the reason why major software houses are finding it uneconomical to produce flight simulations, and are dropping the line in favor of producing short runs of "toy" software games that are cheaply produced, thus profitably sold at low prices and are rapidly replaced by similar "new" games several times a year.(A form of controlled obsolescence that further increases profits.)
Unless the trend is arrested soon you will have no improved passtime games. and I will have no improved Instrument trainers
Besides, what makes you think I was talking to you?[And I am not saying this inflammatory, this time]
I decided to defend those you were speaking to. You see our differences of opinion had been settled and we were all pretty much in agreement...the flaming phase was over.
Yes, I would be more than happy to have you and friends as my guests.
I would greatly enjoy both of your establishments, each of which appears to be unique in its own way
You would also find the autocratic guess was just that.
I am pleased!
I did not say that chefs cannot be fine fellows in their private lives...and the reasons for that approach in their business life is justifiable.Particularly if they are gifted, for many gifted people are temperamental.
And there is nothing wrong with that...wouldn't life be boring without emotions.
PS How about putting a little info in your bio registry here? I always have wondered why some are so shy. [calm down, request not a flame]
I am not disturbed, It is convenient in my lifestyle to keep a low profile, except for my hobby persona.
Goombah
-
Well spoken.
Merry christmas to you and may you recieve your best wishes.
[I peeked, got a new cyber fishin'pole. All it needs is the right lure. Hmmm, hehehe.]
See you in the arena.
Take it your a buff driver mainly?
dakota
[now flying as Ubberguy]
-
Hello Dakota
Nice that Santa is bringing you a new cyberpole.
<SNIP> (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
When in your last message, you expressed your glee at "Catching the most "FISH" with the shortest post", I forcibly restrained myself from pointing out that very few men brag about having short posts!...or use their posts in quite that manner (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
That would not have been the best way to demonstrate my little lesson about avoiding alienating people, would it!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
About the use of the term "Buff" as a synonym for bombers...I have long deplored that the players of WB and AW have thought it "salty" to use the term, until the continual usage has made it an accepted part of the jargon.
Real world pilots who flew or fly bombers differentiate between Mitchells, Forts(or Ladys), Superforts(or Big A**ed Birds), Tired Turkeys('47's), Hustlers('58's) and Buffs(B52's).
But yes, I was once a bomber pilot, and to this day stink in fighters.There is a different mindcast to flying the different categories....again, neither one is better than the other, only different.
But I pontificate and am becoming long winded (again) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Merry Christmas to you as well Dakota!
Thank you for your kind words!
Goombah
-
WOW! what an addictive thread...can't believe I read the whole thing! :O
I can only agree with "a flight sim is as good as its flight model" and leave it at that. Give HTC credit, we've got air and ground targets...and don't forget the CLOUDS (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) !!! All you non-cable modem guys should be happy that it is still under 4MB download. Take the good with the bad, and let the game developers continue with their projects.
<Candy Gram for HTC> (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Land Shark -out
-
Landshark
Got no problem with that at all.
Just would like to see an answer to my original question that started this whole thing.
I realize the 'guages are not calibrated' yet. That is, for me at least, a bit problematic in that I cannot evaluate a flight model without knowing what it is doing. if the MAP and RPM guages are wrong on a piston aircraft then it is impossible for me to provide the developers with accurate feedback regarding their flight model.
First let me say I am not calling anything 'arcade' here. At least not yet. Evaluating an arcade FM is simple. Does it take off? Does it land? Does it move through the air? Will it perform aerobatics? (All without regard for either the laws of physics or the four forces of flight in most cases)
To evaluate something that the developers want to hand the lable of 'flight sim' on then it is a bit more involved.
In the case of the B-17 will It take off with one notch of flaps in the specified distance (based on gross weight) at 46 hg and 2500 rpms? For a fully loaded B-17 this is 3,350 feet at sea level, providing no obstacles must be cleared. To clear a 50' obstacle it will require a 4,400 foot ground roll at 65,000 lbs GVW. (the above assumes standard day calculations for density altitude)
Once airborne will the aircraft maintain 135 mph ISA at 38 hg and 2300 RPMs and climb at roughly 575 fpm from sea level to about 5000 feet.
Etc etc.
Do the numbers have to be dead on? No they should be close but even modern aircraft of the same model will exhibit some performance variances from one to the next. This variance will not be pronounced though.
The only thing I can tell ya about the B-17 FM so far is that the flap response is backward. The nose of the aircraft should NOT pitch down when the flaps are applied. Flaps create increased lift the result of this should be obvious.
My desire is to provide quality feedback to the developers. However, until the instruments are properly calibrated there is no way on earth for me to do that.
I have downloaded every single update that has been posted in the hope that someone would finally calibrate the guages so I can provide intelligent and experienced feedback to the developers. To date, unfortunately, I have seen a lot of eye candy added but have not been able to perceive much change in the overall flight model with the possible exception of the forces of helical propwash being changed from a left yaw tendency (which is correct) to a no yaw tendency to a right yaw tendency.
I want desperately to be of assistance. Trouble is until the guages are fixed there is no hope of me, or any other instrument pilot, being of much use to the developers.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
SHACKER
Could it be that the developers don't want us to be able to evaluate their efforts at this time in the development?
How much easier it is to say, the "guages are not calibrated yet" than it is to actually correct the discrepancies in the flight model, or for that matter to actually create the standard day conditions that the FM calculations should be based upon.
One indication of discrepancy which you revealed is the too long take-off distance/time.
But perhaps the runway distance "is not calibrated yet" as well. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)...or the gross weight is not calibrated yet, or even the time base is not calibrated yet...Where does it start or end?
Perhaps this "Beta Testing" is only a charade to suck potential customers into the habit of coming here to fly...
Or only a means to check the capability of the servers to handle x number of moving objects with an acceptable frame rate, thus there is no interest yet in beta testing the FMs.
Let's clear the air here...just what are we supposed to be beta testing for this sim right now...let's hear about that from the quality assurance team (if one exists).
I call upon the developers to tell us what we are supposed to be giving them feedback on, and to give us a full set of reliable "measuring sticks" before they pretend that they are using us to "beta test" their flight models.(Something we only assumed we were to do at this point in the testing.)
Take a vacation Shacker...Or just playtest this game... It is not yet a flight simulation.
These guys aren't ready for you yet.
They may not EVER want anyone to take a close look at their Flight modelling.
Never mind you players answering me with your meaningless flames...I am not talking to you, thus will not bother to debate with you, for you do not have the answers I seek.
Instead I request that the developers come forward and give us all some guidance about what they want from us at this point in their evaluation of their product, so we don't waste our time looking for answers they do not need or want.
They obviously know that their FMs are absurd and are not trying to fix that yet.
Otherwise they would not be giving Shacker the idiot treatment.
What axe am I grinding here? I'm trying to bring some focus to what is now a Chinese fire drill, not a controlled, systematic beta test.
These so called "beta testers" are presently being used as if they were a thousand monkeys, typing randomly on keyboards in the hopes that they will eventually produce the encyclopedia!
Goombah
[This message has been edited by Goombah (edited 12-23-1999).]
-
Roger that Goombah...
That is where I was trying to go with original post that brought out the self appointed expert and a few of the other flamers.
I have no problem with the developers wanting to create a 'fun' game that has virtually no resemblance to actual flight. If this is to be an "Airquake" game then so be it. I'll bow out and let them have at it. I am sure there is a market for such things.
If this is to carry the lable of 'combat flight simulation' and live up to that lable then I'm okay with that as well and would love to help. (there is a LOT of work to be done)
If there are plans to implement the changes then tell me. If not I can stop wasting my time and the developers time and move on to something else.
There are those who wish to 'believe' they are great pilots and worthy combatants. Trouble is with some "flight Simulation" GAMES they are neither. Since the 'flight model' bears little resemblance to anything you or I have ever flown real world. Those GAMES (that is what they are not simulations) cater to the Walter Mittys of the world and that's fine by me I just want to know which way this product is going from an 'informed' source within the developers group. Then I'll now how, if at all, to proceed.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Sheesh, and i was begining to agree with you both until those last two posts. If you want a flight model that realistic, go fly a real plane. Its costly but im sure alot more entertaining. Your both reading waaaay to into it.
HTC needs to make money. Thats a simple fact. They cant have some super ultra-realistic flight characteristics becuase that will cut thier user base down to the two of you. And then they wont make any money, this still is a 'game' and a 'game' needs to be three things 'fun' 'effective in potraying its theme' and 'able to turn a profit' right now if you ask just about any one here theyll tell you its defintly doing its job at the first 2, and after the beta is up, we'll see what it can do on the third.
Now i personally would love to see a darn good representation of those great warplanes of the 40s...but when i hop into an F4U to fly it around and shoot down some other players, or launch rockets at some acks. I dont want to have to worry about a 30-40 item check list before i can even get off the ground. Who cares about cowl flaps or oil this or...whatever the hell all those things are. Theres about 400 levers and buttons and annoying gauges in one of those things. I just want to be able to experiance the 'fun' part of what those pilots experianced (not saying killing people is fun or anything, you know what i mean) not do all the boring routine crap they did. Im sure they CAN make you hit alt-w to switch up the landing hook, or some other button to make the tail wheel unlock, and another one to start the pnuematics for the wings, and another one to lock them and blah and blah and blah and by the time your done youve been vulched four or five times...ahhhh..sorry im ranting but its just so stupid that any one but a tiny tiny select 30 or 40 people would ever want to do that.
Any way ill shut up now and go play and stop whining.
--Fallen
-
IOW
If I have to worry about stalls that are realistic, BOther with energy management during a dog fight, sweat landings, worry about engine failure from pushing the power plant too hard....etc etc..... waaaaaa it ain't no fun and I don't wanna do it..
Okay arcade it is and I'm outa here until i hear differently from the developers.
Don't delude yourselfs here all the above were real concerns for real pilots in real combat. If it is too much for you to handle then you are definately NOT be the big air ace you invision yourselves ta be here folks.
Self dilusion is a wonderful thing when ya live in a dreamworld...
C ya.....
-
WOW! I got to the end.
First of all, a standing ovation for Goombah.
I so enjoyed your first post (and the rest) that I am sending it to my AW3 Commander, It better explains why I would rather spend my time flopping around in AH, than yawning in AW3.
I freely admit, I have know idea what the heck I'm doing tring to fly a WWII high performace aircraft, heck I spend a lot of time at our local flight museum, talking with the Old dudes, just to learn to fly this crate.
It is good to see all you, so empassioned over the flight models, makes me feel like I'm getting my monies worth (or will be when I get charged for this)
Thanks guys!
Good post Humble!
Mr.ED
Pony pilot wannabe
Knights
-
Don't delude yourselfs here all the above were real concerns for real pilots in real combat. If it is too much for you to handle then you are definately NOT be the big air ace you invision yourselves ta be here folks.
Shacker, I think you are reading more into this than there is. Granted, there needs to be a tradeoff between realism and playability. This has been said before and will continue to be said again. This is NOT a sim which attempts to totally recreate the flight experience from WWII. You dont need to go through a pre-flight checklist, nor trouble yourself with tower control nor mess with fuel mixture. Sure there are some pilots out there that want the real deal but probably many more who just want the fun aspects of pilot to pilot combat without all the secondary aspects of being a WWII pilot.
Most of us surely are not looking for the ultra-sim where you need to radio for ground clearance, adjust fuel mixtures, etc. What we are looking for is a realistic flight model complete with spins, stalls, etc.
What I think most are alluding to is that if the F4U-1D flight manual stated that at at full throttle MAP should show 44.5 InHg, the game shouldnt be expected to show this same level of detail. As long as the general flight details are there, most should be happy. Remember, you cant please all the people all the time.
-Ding
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/000561.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/000561.html)
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
"The side with the fanciest uniforms loses."
-
After more thought on my part, I hope to give all factions of this debate some "Food for Thought"
Earlier in the thread "The Arcadishness" of some "Flight Simulations" was compared to the "Game of Golf". In the light of how the logic was presented, this was agreeable and correct.
Take a moment to consider these ideas I am presenting in your future arguements. Hopefully too inlighten one perspective of what AH is or should be.
The "Game of Golf", a surprizingly simple game, has fascinated people for the last 400 to 600 years. The "Player Base for Golf" compares to the "Player Base for Simulated Flight" the same as a "Squeak Toy Knight" has chances of slaying a "Mythical Dragon". It just doesn't compare.
I definately enjoy the game of golf. However, I only very seldom play simulated golf games.
I hear others tout about how "Realistic" and "Fun" simulated golf is. I can detect the paralell elements of Real vs Simulated Golf. I just find too many components that divide what I know to be realistic vs what is simulated.
This division of experience, "Really Erks the Hell Out of Me". I can't do simulated Golf for that reason.
Powered manned flight as existed for less than 100 years. Recreational, computer simulated flight for about 10 years. It is just a baby boys and girls. Give it some time to grow up.
The rate at which technology is increasing is quite astounding. I might yet find some form of a "Simulated Golf Game" that I can compare to a "Real Golf Game". But, I bet that will be sooner than what many are asking for in a flight simulation right now.
I find no fault in any individuals efforts to hurry this along. IMO they just need to realize that for this type of "Simulated Game" to accurately "Simulate Absolute Realism", the technology must advance quite a bit more.
Merry Christmas Eve!
Mino
-
Goombah, shacker :
You are questioning HTC commitment to producing a high fidelity model because of the lack of feedback from them on your particular disscusion?
Come on guys you obviously have experience flying planes but this is beta and it has been mentioned on this board by pyro and hitech that the various planes performance are only roughed in at this moment, from this I take it to mean that the physics model is in place (complete htc ?) but the numbers imputted into this model are not yet representing the true performance of the aircraft, pyro said he would be working on getting plane performances accurate for the next few patches. The people at the helm of HTC have a history of striving to produce high fidelity models, I think it is fair to say that they are aiming at creating the best physics model they can. When HTC say that the incorrect figures are due to guage calibration it is consistent with previous comments so probably not a smoke screen. These guys have made excellent flight models before in Warbirds (don't take my opinion in for it here is a link to an excellent site that rviews flight models including warbirds www.pctestpilot.com (http://www.pctestpilot.com) ) That is not to say that everything they do is correct but it's probably best to give them the benefit of the doubt in most cases when they tell you something rather than say these guys have no intrest in making a realistic flight model their just trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Out of curiosity what are your opinions on the physics model? Not the numbers for the 51 are off etc but more along the lines of shakers comment
==================================
The nose of the aircraft should NOT pitch down when the flaps are applied. Flaps create increased lift the result of this should be obvious.
==================================
P.S on that point I remember reading the nose pitched down (as in aces high) due to airflow over the wings i.e. They are acting like a secondary elevator in the down position which will pitch the nose down as in aces high. Is this incorrect?
I would say though the lack of feedback is probably due to the length of the thread and the replies in it as it takes a hell of a long time to read and be familiar with the arguments. I myself haven't read all the posts perhaps it would be an idea to make a few new threads each addressing what you find wrong with the game.
-
jmccaul:
Following the advice of using a new thread to bring attention to recommendations ...
Please see Flap Deployment Vs Angle of Attack
Goombah
[This message has been edited by Goombah (edited 12-24-1999).]
-
That is the whole problem I am trying to point out.
I have NO MEASURE of how the physics model is performing until and unless the guages are calibrated.
There is just no way for me to tell what the aircraft is doing since I can't feel it in my butt I must rely on the instruments to tell me what is going on. If they are wrong there is no point.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Surely shacker instruments aren't everything.
What do you think of the drag, induced and parasitic, on the planes do these effect them in correct ways?
Stalling and Spinning are these modeled correctly?
Just 2 examples of a way do judge an FM. You made a comment about flaps on the B17 do you see any other errors.
Obviously you can't fully judge the FM without instruments but can't you comment on the feel?
-
How can I comment on the feel?
The aircraft should perform a certain way at certain settings. If these are altered the results should be predictable however those results vary between aircraft.
Without accurately modled instruments I have no way of knowing if induced drag is correct or if parasitic drag is in the right amount for a given aircraft configuration.
Without calibrated instruments detailed analysis of things like that would be purely guessing and would be of little help to the developers and probably be a detriment to their efforts.
Forinstance I know the aircraft will not fly much below about 200 mph indicated without the stall warning starting. Is this correct? no it is about 115 to 120 mph too fast for the proper stall speed. What is the cause? I dunno. No way to tell if the instruments are not calibrated It could be RPMs, MAP, Power, Drag, Parasitic Drag. All of the above or none of the above. There is just no way to tell.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Shacker
Not many flight sims have working MAP and RPM so how do you evaluate these? Thses are the only 2 instruments not yet calibrated yet to my knowledge due to the fact the engine mangement part of the game is not yet written. It is a fair assumption to say that the speed,altitude etc. indicated are correct.
Earlier in this thread you made the comment
=========================================
"To answer your other question the flight models in MSCFS are pretty darn good"
=========================================
Was this judgement based purley on MAP and RPM settings? If so how did you know the correct settings on every plane?
you also said
==========================================
"Without accurately modled instruments I have no way of knowing if induced drag is correct or if parasitic drag is in the right amount for a given aircraft configuration."
==========================================
These 2 factors are purly a function of AoA (hence lift) and speed respectivley and i think it's fair to say the speed gauge is working so why can't you judge?
You also state :
==========================================
"For instance I know the aircraft will not fly much below about 200 mph indicated without the stall warning starting. Is this correct? no it is about 115 to 120 mph too fast for the proper stall speed."
===========================================
Any aircraft can stall at any speed the same is true in aces high. E.g. FW 190 A4 in a 6g turn will stall at 311 mph in a clean configuration. If you are talking about stall speed at 1G then aces high does pretty good.
To paraphrase spitfire 9 pilot's handbook
Stall speed at training load (full main tanks no ammuntion) is approx 90 mph. An indication of the stall is given by tail buffeting and the stall itself is gentle with the nose and either wing dropping.
In aces high the spit exhibits these cahracteristics although the stall speed is closer to 80-85 than 90 which is probably due to the models not being finalized i.e. the numbers not being put into the physics model not quite right rather than the model being fundamentally flawed also things such as reverse aileron works at stall.
Exact numbers for particular aircraft are not what we are talking about. The numbers plugged into the flight model for each plane can be altered so that a particular plane stalls at the right speeds etc. These numbers still need to be tweaked. You can still though judge the physics model as some principles of flight apply regardless of which reverse ailerons at stall are a good example of this.
If I, a complete novice, can judge what is realistic about some small aspects of this sim simply through a rudimentary knowledge of how a plane should act why can't you?
My post above asking about drag and stall where just 2 examples to give you a kick start into the sort of things you could discuss when evaluated the FM and you did manage to comment on the stall aspect but to be honest that answer slightly tainted my confidence in your ability to judge FM's.
So I ask again what do you think is good about the physics model
e.g. aileron reversal at stall
and what is bad (how do other sims do it better)
e.g. nose down with flaps on b17
You mentioned this as constructive critism and the developer gave you an answer : flaps are not yet moddeled. I'm sure comments in this form would yield a much greater response from HTC. Also if you post them in a new thread they are much more likely to be read.
-
I'll print out your post and answer it as best I can at lenght soon.
In essence you said any plane can stall at any speed. Not in level flight it shouldn't unless you got one heck of a gusting tailwind.
The B-17 should lift off at 115 mph or thereabouts at full gross. The B-17 in AH won't even maintain level flight at that speed.
If the airspeed indicator is indeed correct then the FM is toast. I suspect none of the guages are modled at this time.
-
Quote
==========================================
In essence you said any plane can stall at any speed. Not in level flight it shouldn't unless you got one heck of a gusting tailwind.
==========================================
Of course you can stall in level flight (i.e. 1g) that is what pilot handbooks give. You are unlikly to be at these speeds in level flight though with any signicant thrust (engines working hard) however no plane can remain in flight indefinatly without thrust (i.e. engines off) and will eventually reach a point when the IAS in level flight is not enough and the aircraft will stall.
========================================
The B-17 should lift off at 115 mph or thereabouts at full gross. The B-17 in AH won't even maintain level flight at that speed.
==========================================
Personally i can hold it level until about 110 IAS (just did a quick test not sure what loadout) but assuming you are right and the B17 does stall at too higher speed at 1g this would not be a function of the physics model but rather the numbers put into the model which could be corrected this doesn't show how good/bad the model is it does though show the B17 isn't performing as it should, none of the planes are, that has been acknowledged by HTC and that is one of their next priorities getting the right numbers in. This not going to improve the base physics model if is fundamentally wrong now it will be after the changes which is why you can judge it now.
=========================================
If the airspeed indicator is indeed correct then the FM is toast. I suspect none of the guages are modled at this time.
=========================================
I am 99% sure the indicator is right I see no reason why it would not be. For the sake of your evaluation assume only that engine mangement settings are incorrect i.e. changing MAP and RPM will not have the correct effects due to those components not being properly modelled (and therefore calibrated).
Eagerly awaiting you FM evaluation (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Hang in there Shacker, your day will come. Flight modeling stuff has been pretty static through the beta but that will be changing a lot in the near future. I get the feeling that we won't present the level of complexity that you're looking for systems-wise, but I think our flight modeling will come out well. I will definately let you know when the B-17 has been done. As it stands now, it'll probably be one of the last planes to get hit.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
"The side with the fanciest uniforms loses."
-
Good for you Pyro!
If Shacker had been given that kind of answer on his first posting I doubt if he would have felt the need to defend what he (and I) knew had to be true.
Certainly I would not have felt the need to jump in as I did, to defend a person who was obviously knowlegeable, yet was being ignored by developers and attacked by players.
I doubt that he will expect the systems to be too detailed...Aces High is not, after all, an emergency procedures trainer nor is it intended to be a complete procedures trainer.
I am confident now that your team will insure that Aces High is more than "just a game" and will be a flight and combat simulator as well.
I look forward to its completion.
Shacker can be of great help to you during your further development phases...Particularly if he has a more direct channel for his feedback to you than this public forum.
There are all too few good flight simulators being developed these days...That, I feel sure is the source of Shacker's motivation to help...I know it was the reason for my concern.
We NEED Aces High!
Goombah
[This message has been edited by Goombah (edited 12-28-1999).]
-
Shacker
I am still intrested in your opinions at this stage (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Not as a developer but as a player intrested in the finer points of FM's
-
Punt
in relation to thread
"Plane Size , Flight Model and Horizon Shading"