PDA

View Full Version : Stall Characteristics



tsisqua
03-24-2004, 10:52 AM
Hi All!

Air_Mail made a post in GD that I think is worth looking at. It was suggested several times that the topic be posted here, but I still see nothing, sooooo . . . .

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=506105692

That is where the thread is, well into its second page since last night. I have tried stalling the counter-rotating-prop-wonder, the P-38, and this argument does indeed hold true. I am perfectly happy with the greatest flight sim ever, but was wondering if this can be made a little more realistic.

Thanks
Tsisqua
edit: I just chose an IL2, 1st model, and was able to stall without the problematic wing-dip. It stalled just as the Piper that I have trained in does. I think that there should be stall testing on everything to find out which planes do this. So far, everything but the IL2 behaves as Air_Mail describes. If this is a concession that was made, I'm ok with that. If it won't change, I am ok with that also, but wanted to ask Oleg about it.

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/tsisqua-nedChristie.jpg
Tsalagi Asgaya Galvladi

[This message was edited by tsisqua on Wed March 24 2004 at 10:05 AM.]

tsisqua
03-24-2004, 10:52 AM
Hi All!

Air_Mail made a post in GD that I think is worth looking at. It was suggested several times that the topic be posted here, but I still see nothing, sooooo . . . .

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=506105692

That is where the thread is, well into its second page since last night. I have tried stalling the counter-rotating-prop-wonder, the P-38, and this argument does indeed hold true. I am perfectly happy with the greatest flight sim ever, but was wondering if this can be made a little more realistic.

Thanks
Tsisqua
edit: I just chose an IL2, 1st model, and was able to stall without the problematic wing-dip. It stalled just as the Piper that I have trained in does. I think that there should be stall testing on everything to find out which planes do this. So far, everything but the IL2 behaves as Air_Mail describes. If this is a concession that was made, I'm ok with that. If it won't change, I am ok with that also, but wanted to ask Oleg about it.

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/tsisqua-nedChristie.jpg
Tsalagi Asgaya Galvladi

[This message was edited by tsisqua on Wed March 24 2004 at 10:05 AM.]

Zen--
03-24-2004, 11:01 AM
I'm no expert, but I must agree in general that there are things missing from the stall characteristics in game, more so in AEP than before.

Spins now happen within a faction of the wing stalling and imho there is almost no difference now between a stall and a spin for many planes.

It doesn't make the game unplayable, but it does tend to reduce the feeling of realism or immersion I guess. For what it's worth, I kinda liked the 1.22 stalls the best so far.

-Zen-
Tracks (http://209.163.146.67/tracks)

tsisqua
03-24-2004, 12:45 PM
Yeppir, Zen. 1.22 seemed awfully good. I was really surprised by the P-38. The Government movie on flying the Lightning over at Zeno's website made a big deal out of the bird's stall characteristics; you could barely tell that there was a 1G stall because of the counter-rotating prop blades; the nose came straight down. In the game, performing a low-n-slow scissors is a dangerous proposition. A stall will send you spinning to the earth. I am still doing well with the Lightning, but this does make it difficult.

Tsisqua

Zen--
03-24-2004, 02:29 PM
imho, it can do it very well despite the stall modelling.

Look at the attention to detail in so many aspects of the game...to numerable to list them all. Look at the general behavior of the physics engine...I think it's very impressive to say the least.

Like any sim/game, AEP has it's limits. It's not possible to make a 100% accurate physics engine to my knowledge. It is a series of (educated) compromises that gets the overall feel right. It does fail in certain areas and while it's easy to say 'how could you have overlooked that', you can say that about almost any aspect of the game had they chose to compromise on something else.


I didn't design the game but I do play it alot. I'm also not an expert on anything important, but I have eyes and I can remember what I see. There are trends in the game that are not so great, but for every one of those, there are many more that are good and that justify the game having the reputation of being the best period.

Certainly a lot of that reputation is subjective but I feel it deserves it because to me there is a difference between BEST and PERFECT. I don't think anyone ever said the game was perfect overall, only that it was the best available.


I'm satisfied, no two ways about it. Somethings I would like improved, but to be honest, I frankly can't complain too much. 1C/Maddox have given me hundreds of hours of entertainment over the past couple years. They must have done something right.

-Zen-
Tracks (http://209.163.146.67/tracks)

BuzzardHead
03-24-2004, 03:04 PM
Eloquently put ZEN.

You can run but...You'll only die out of breath.

boohaa
03-24-2004, 03:16 PM
Some planes exhibit this nice drop out of a trun effect and if you puch em they then can spin.

Chuck_Older
03-24-2004, 05:05 PM
FB is not the greatest flight sim ever.

I would guess that the best flight sim ever is used by the Military in several countries.

However, the stall characteristics might be made to be a more clear issue if you consider the type of flight that the sim was designed to handle for a quick second.

For instance, I can easily see how in-game, there might be "phantom" rudder input to make the spin. Why? Because that's what the programming needs to make the spin.

The code has got to be at least twice as complex as I care to think about. This might be an issue where the time spent on making stalls more correct was not as important as making sure that the stalls seen in combat behaved more correctly, as the average 'pilot' in this sim is not going to keep a log book on clean stalls, he's going to dogfight, and that means spins are more important to model. I can also see where the code to make spins more 'correct' might be mutually exclusive to the code needed to correctly model a more common stall.

This is all supposition on my part of course, but I am trying to illustrate some of the issues I could easily see being present, right off the top of my head. In effect, I can see the possible problem of needing two flight models for each aircraft.

*****************************
Wave bub-bub-bub-bye to the boss, it's your profit, it's his loss~ Clash

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Wed March 24 2004 at 11:31 PM.]

VW-IceFire
03-24-2004, 08:24 PM
Always have to remember that Oleg is making what amounts to an accurate physics simulation of a collection of complicated, unique, and sometimes troublesome high performance propellor and early jet fighters in a game that runs on the average home PC with good performance.

The fact that it works is pretty amazing...the fact that its reasonably accurate is also amazing. At least to me. Others may not agree, but, having some small understanding of what they must have done to get this game to work initially is definately impressive.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

GregSM
03-24-2004, 10:41 PM
Hi CrazyIvan,


Your effort to impose civility around here is welcome, even if it spoils a perfectly good joke.


Cheers,


Greg


Edit: why do the wee boxes reject pasted text? I need the MS spell-check, good grief.



[This message was edited by GregSM on Thu March 25 2004 at 07:14 AM.]

[This message was edited by GregSM on Thu March 25 2004 at 07:37 AM.]

tsisqua
03-24-2004, 11:08 PM
This whole thing is getting pretty funny. Let me add that my comment about "the greatest flight sim, ever . . ." Should have been followed by a great big IMHO.

This wasn't intended to slam the game, and I was trying to post courteously, so added what I considered to be a compliment to the game before bringing up an issue. . . something that seems very rare on some days here . . . about an issue that I'd like to see changed. That's why I thought that there was an ORR forum.


Tsisqua

edit: This post was not intended to offend anyone who has nothing better to do than to come to an IL2 forum, and complain about IL2.

[This message was edited by tsisqua on Wed March 24 2004 at 10:20 PM.]

crazyivan1970
03-25-2004, 12:34 AM
Ok folks...you either stay on topic without biting...or this thread is gone. Issue was raised, maybe a valid one. But still, always someone trying to highjack the thread.

New broom!

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

lindyman
03-25-2004, 01:59 AM
I'm a bit confused about the talk of the existence of a stall, and counter rotating props, which of course have no correlation to each other what so ever. I presume the intent is about the dipping of a wing in the stall, instead of dipping the nose.

That this is what happens to all planes, in all stalls, regardless of circumstances, is weird indeed. (Or is there some plane that dips the nose now? I have only had AEP for 1 week, and that's not enough to give all flyables a decent run-through. Amazing, isn't it?)
_
/Bjorn.

WWMaxGunz
03-25-2004, 02:05 AM
Do tip-stalls count? Cause when I pull too hard back on the stick, I get those and only if I keep it up do I get a spin.


Neal

tsisqua
03-25-2004, 06:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lindyman:
I'm a bit confused about the talk of the existence of a stall, and counter rotating props, which of course have no correlation to each other what so ever. I presume the intent is about the dipping of a wing in the stall, instead of dipping the nose.

That this is what happens to all planes, in all stalls, regardless of circumstances, is weird indeed. (Or is there some plane that dips the nose now? I have only had AEP for 1 week, and that's not enough to give all flyables a decent run-through. Amazing, isn't it?)
_
/Bjorn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of all planes that this should not happen to, twin engine planes with counter rotating props shouldn't especially do this. There is no left-over torque to cause a roll/yaw type condition that could bring this on in a low-speed, straight and level stall.

I remember an issue concerning lighting inside the cockpit. When the sun was in front of you, the panel would have light on it. When the sun was behind you, the panel was dark. I posted that I doubted if it could be fixed, and Oleg posted that he would try, seeing that it was indeed a noticible thing. Well, guess what? He fixed it. I don't post here to whine about a program that has such great support from the developer. I appreciate a simulated experience doing something that I once could only dream about. I have flown FS95, FS98, FS2002, FS2004, Flanker, WWII Fighters, Jane's USAF, JSF, Flight Unlimited (a great sim in it's time), JAS, USN Fighters, CFS (1,2, and 3), and IMHO . . . . IMHO, I said . . . This is the best, closest thing I have experienced to what it actually feels like when I am rich enough, and lucky enough to climb into a real plane, and fly for real.

Thank you, Ivan, for keeping order. I would rather see this thread locked than to see it used as another opportunity to bash 1C.


Tsisqua

WWMaxGunz
03-25-2004, 06:32 AM
In a sim the forces are calculated, balanced and set on an axis. Any net imbalance will tip it. In reality the forces are everywhere and while yes the balance occurs, a change will perhaps include the equivalent of moving the axis or some other change that the math model doesn't reflect. Many sims handle these things by changing the FM or running fixed, "canned" routines when the model reaches certain limits -- and they feel like it, artificial. I'm sure that could be. I hope not.

We could go back to the self-righting planes that have to be held into banks. That might stabilize the stalls. Or perhaps some future change will make self-righting only within so many degrees of upright. I wonder if that would be felt?

How would you fix it?


Neal

tsisqua
03-25-2004, 06:51 AM
Neal, the complexity of this sim boggles my mind, and I wouldn't begin to know how it came to be what it is, seeing the code is all hidden in those sfs files. I suppose that the only person that can tell for sure is Oleg. As was mentioned before, it may be a necesarry evil to allow for spins in the game, something way more important in a combat sim than a 1G stall in a civil flight sim. Only Oleg knows if there is some way to defeat the programing for low-speed, straight-and-level stalls, and it may well be too late to impliment a change, providing that a change is indeed possible. So I guess my strategy is to bump this until I see that Oleg has had at the very least, a chance to look at it.

Thanks
Tsisqua

Zen--
03-25-2004, 07:28 AM
Neal,

Respectfully, what was your opinion about the stall characteristics in 1.22? Imho, I thought they worked very well, just curious as to what you think, no flames here.

-Zen-
Tracks (http://209.163.146.67/tracks)

mike_espo
03-25-2004, 07:35 AM
I guess many are in agreement that the stall/spin characteristics are somewhat off.....I am sure Oleg is aware of the problem now. Hopefully, something will be done about it in the next? or future patches.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

WWMaxGunz
03-25-2004, 07:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
Neal,

Respectfully, what was your opinion about the stall characteristics in 1.22? Imho, I thought they worked very well, just curious as to what you think, no flames here.

-Zen-
http://209.163.146.67/tracks
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never tested them out at all. I wasn't able to fly the sim from after 1.1b till about a week or two before AEP came out due to computer and health problems. I even missed just when the self-righting tendency got fixed/changed. I don't like saying fixed when it comes to software, at least not easily. It comes of many years writing the stuff. To tell teh truth, I don't feel all bad about the stalls now as I rarely ever stall and only 3 times since AEP have spun without trying, and that's only due to lack of attention and in two of those cases because of excess target fixation. I hear the wind rush sound of stall in my headphones and I loosen up so I won't blow my speed and use some other tactic for the situation.

Years ago, stalls and spins were some of the first things I checked out in a sim. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Even with the original IL2. Somewhere around FB 1.0 and waiting for the first patch I've gotten a wait until things settle out attitude. Things still haven't settled out.


Neal

Zen--
03-25-2004, 08:10 AM
True, things still haven't settled down. Stalls and spins have been 'refined' for going on 3 years now I guess.

I have never 'tested' stalls in any version of the game, but naturally have flown alot which exposes you to a wide range of plane types, conditions and situations where you experience stalls.

1.22 I thought had them down pretty well because they were a factor in tactics, added to the feel of the FM and required some amount of practice and skill to become accustomed to. It paid off to specialize in one particular aircraft as well, because many planes had FM's that complex and subtle. That was very interesting.

I don't think IL2/FB/AEP has ever had totally realistic stall behavior, but thats just me and my opinion. I'm honestly not qualified to make a formal judgement since I am not a pilot or an engineer and not even as well read as many others. I just go with what I see in the game and a bit of common sense I guess.

It seems that in AEP the addition of the near instantaneous spin has made things very different than 1.22. The stalls are still very similar but the rapidity of the spin is very unlike 1.22 and I think that has really thrown the feel of AEP off. Looking at it from a another angle, the global tendency to spin now brings to light several of the FM discrepancies that have always existed...twin engined planes for one thing. With everyone spinning now, it makes those inconsistencies stand out pretty obviously.

Thats one of the main reasons I think FB1.22 had it about as well as could be done imho. They were a serious factor, but like real stalls could be understood, practiced and controlled once you knew your plane. The same is true in AEP and this attention to the plane is probably an even bigger requirement, but now mistakes cost a lot more than they used to and even veteran pilots dedicated to specific planes are finding the spin tendancy problematic.

I said in another thread I don't know what is more realistic and said in this thread that I am not really qualified anyway, but I think things in AEP are a step on the harsh side and feel less realistic than 1.22, for whatever thats worth.


Thanks for your opinion btw http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-Zen-
Tracks (http://209.163.146.67/tracks)

WWMaxGunz
03-25-2004, 08:39 AM
LOL --- you can always fly EAW!! LMAO!

Okay, if you never did it makes this sims' stall to spin look like a pony ride. That's why I laugh... I liked that sim because of the penalty and what it did to my abilities at stick handling and attentiveness. Overmodelled extremely but it made me sharper and I got to where I could even fly within that very narrow margin by feel. It were wicked! As bad off as I am now, I think that long term memory and habits of those days is part of why I'm good at avoiding spins even now. And I've been very good at recovering from spins with IL2 since the start. Not always successful but I've pulled out of some nasty ones online that got good comments from some of the pros in my squad (we have a few).

After what you say about the stalls and spins in 1.22 and knowing there's a patch around the corner I find myself hoping Oleg feels the same. That don't mean he can for sure get things back that way but he would try. He did take the self-righting tendency out, or rather his development team did in time. It just took clear into the next stage of the sim is all. There's a lot more work than staff to do it.


Neal

tsisqua
03-25-2004, 02:30 PM
Bump, and thank you to everyone for posting intelligent comments. What really gets me going is that the FM's are SOOOOOO close to what actually has to be real (as far as a non-warbird pilot can tell). I flew IL2 for 6 months with no flight lessons (I was very poor at the time), and was using thunderstorm conditions to simulate crosswind landings. When I finally got to fly again, I asked my CFI to go up with me for refamiliarization (now there's a big word LOL). As luck would have it, I was on final with a very sudden, strong crosswind. I threw the rudder over, straightened us with the ailerons, and sat her down as pretty as you please. Ben looked at me and said "That was exactly what you needed to do." His hands were set to grab the yoke, but he didn't have to. He thought that it was from me flying MSFS, and that was when I told him about IL2. "Well, that was good. Lets do it again." and we did. The FM in this game is VERY good, and sometimes, steps are made backward in one area to improve another, more important thing . . . which means that it is constantly improving, and that is a good thing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tsisqua

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/tsisqua-nedChristie.jpg
Tsalagi Asgaya Galvladi

mike_espo
03-25-2004, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tsisqua:
conditions to simulate crosswind landings. When I finally got to fly again, I asked my CFI to go up with me for refamiliarization (now there's a big word LOL). As luck would have it, I was on final with a very sudden, strong crosswind. I threw the rudder over, straightened us with the ailerons, and sat her down as pretty as you please. Ben looked at me and said "That was exactly what you needed to do." His hands were set to grab the yoke, but he didn't have to. He thought that it wasBump, and thank you to everyone for posting intelligent comments. What really gets me going is that the FM's are SOOOOOO close to what actually has to be real (as far as a non-warbird pilot can tell). I flew IL2 for 6 months with no flight lessons (I was very poor at the time), and was using thunderstorm from me flying MSFS, and that was when I told him about IL2. "Well, that was good. Lets do it again." and we did. The FM in this game is VERY good, and sometimes, steps are made backward in one area to improve another, more important thing . . . which means that it is constantly improving, and that is a good thing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tsisqua

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/tsisqua-nedChristie.jpg
Tsalagi Asgaya Galvladi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. Cool. I guess the FM is better than I thought...

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg