PDA

View Full Version : This would stop all the whining for a while...



gkll
04-03-2004, 01:22 AM
I have a way to get 90% of us thoroughly shook and starting over with more realistic tactics

To shake this game up and get some different stuff happening

To give a significant advantage to real pilots

Il2 demo had it... FB 1.0 not at all...

I swear this game has some routines buffering us from the raw edge of the physics... 'pilot help' permanently turned on - pilots with genuine experience of these planes have said that the difficulty pushing the real aircraft out to the edge of the envelope has to be experienced - this game is not close (but used to be closer - ie Il2 1.04 touted by RL high performance pilots as the best - although it seems to me AEP is distinctly better than FB 1.0).

Of course it can't be, really, for like 3 generations of computer hardware or whatever... but I think it is true that 1c has the option of giving us a relatively unbuffered FM right now...

If they did it would suddenly become difficult to keep a plane in the air sometimes - we would all have to learn to fly no more gross sloppy uncoordinated control inputs or you would be struggling to stay in the air never mind getting a tight turn radius

a force feedback stick would become nearly a necessity

The forums would suddenly find that all the mundane normal whining topics were suddenly totally irrelevant - the ground would shift and people would be busy keeping their balance not worrying about some FM 'bias' of Oleg's

If this edgy flight model, requiring real piloting skill, were added to some fatigue and g-force limitations as has been discussed in depth, P47's could certainly shoot down zeros...regularily... pilot skill and clever tactics would outdo turn/burn 9 times out of 10 - the average turn and burner in his La7 (my personal favorite) would find himself blacked out with a shuddering out of control ship within half a turn circle the way we fly these things now... and what I mean is not so much that B+Z would become more viable, but that some of these ships (eg P51) could give a spitfire a hard time on the spits terms - given even subtle variation in pilot skill

Of course if the physics are really not there and this is all empirical vector stuff like Warbirds than no dice... but I don't think so.

1c - give us a switch, and the game will become new again - it has to be the easiest way to provide an extensive shift to the balance of tactics which presently prevail

gkll
04-03-2004, 01:22 AM
I have a way to get 90% of us thoroughly shook and starting over with more realistic tactics

To shake this game up and get some different stuff happening

To give a significant advantage to real pilots

Il2 demo had it... FB 1.0 not at all...

I swear this game has some routines buffering us from the raw edge of the physics... 'pilot help' permanently turned on - pilots with genuine experience of these planes have said that the difficulty pushing the real aircraft out to the edge of the envelope has to be experienced - this game is not close (but used to be closer - ie Il2 1.04 touted by RL high performance pilots as the best - although it seems to me AEP is distinctly better than FB 1.0).

Of course it can't be, really, for like 3 generations of computer hardware or whatever... but I think it is true that 1c has the option of giving us a relatively unbuffered FM right now...

If they did it would suddenly become difficult to keep a plane in the air sometimes - we would all have to learn to fly no more gross sloppy uncoordinated control inputs or you would be struggling to stay in the air never mind getting a tight turn radius

a force feedback stick would become nearly a necessity

The forums would suddenly find that all the mundane normal whining topics were suddenly totally irrelevant - the ground would shift and people would be busy keeping their balance not worrying about some FM 'bias' of Oleg's

If this edgy flight model, requiring real piloting skill, were added to some fatigue and g-force limitations as has been discussed in depth, P47's could certainly shoot down zeros...regularily... pilot skill and clever tactics would outdo turn/burn 9 times out of 10 - the average turn and burner in his La7 (my personal favorite) would find himself blacked out with a shuddering out of control ship within half a turn circle the way we fly these things now... and what I mean is not so much that B+Z would become more viable, but that some of these ships (eg P51) could give a spitfire a hard time on the spits terms - given even subtle variation in pilot skill

Of course if the physics are really not there and this is all empirical vector stuff like Warbirds than no dice... but I don't think so.

1c - give us a switch, and the game will become new again - it has to be the easiest way to provide an extensive shift to the balance of tactics which presently prevail

LEXX_Luthor
04-03-2004, 01:26 AM
At mission load you can go into menu and turn on Blackout Option.

crazyivan1970
04-03-2004, 01:29 AM
I`m trying to understand what you trying to say mate...can you explain?

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.

gkll
04-03-2004, 01:41 AM
Who are you talking to CrazyIvan?

clint-ruin
04-03-2004, 01:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I`m trying to understand what you trying to say mate...can you explain?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The gist I get of it is that FBs stick force limits cushion the player from being able to tip the plane out of controlled flight in a lot of cases.

In Il-2 you could basically make any plane sommersault just by pushing the stick forward and then all the way back.

Not really all that easy to do in FB.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Fehler
04-03-2004, 01:47 AM
I think he is saying that HE thinks the planes are too easy to fly. (Dont know, never flew the real ones)

I also think he is saying that HE thinks pilot fatigue is not a factor, but was a factor in real life (Totally agree based on pilot recollections)

Well, I think that's what he is saying..

But he could be saying, "All your base are belong to us" because "Someone set us up the bomb."

But I was wondering.. which direction does a toilet flush on the equator? Can you answer that question Ivan???!??? LOL

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

CPS_Shadow
04-03-2004, 01:49 AM
gkll on a more serious note. I think your confusing difficulty with reality. IMHO making it harder to fly the planes would make this game less real, and less fun, not more real.

[This message was edited by CPS_Shadow on Sat April 03 2004 at 09:28 AM.]

crazyivan1970
04-03-2004, 01:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But I was wondering.. which direction does a toilet flush on the equator? Can you answer that question Ivan???!??? LOL
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I`ll try to answer that one in the morning , ok bud? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

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.

gkll
04-03-2004, 03:40 AM
got kicked thanks ubi

Mass confusion I see.. well its about all I ever post about so I guess it seems obvious to me

And Im a fast typer so extra junk tends to pile up in my posts

I'll strip it down

Il2 has 'flying help' built into the FM. This is like the driving aids in car sims - 'steering help' for example.
Turn steering help on and the program ignores all your sloppy crap at the wheel and just puts the car more or less where you point it.... in Il2 this has real pilots going 'look at the s**t that guy got away with... not fair - I AM Chuck Yeager and these boys just fly right on out to the edge of that ol envelope... and hold it there... and on... '

RL pilots who have flown these ships (not cessnas please) say to get to that last 10% is a subtle, concentrated mind nerve and body draining event - not just the gforce - the sheer difficulty and skill needed to fly a ship to the tightest turn circle it can do.... but il2 you just slam the stick around however you want, pretty much

I think the physics has more to offer us and we've seen glimpses in the original demo and 1.04 for example, according to the pros - give it to us and the real Chuck Yeagers will go 'that's what I'm talking about' as they bag another shuddering zero in a turnfight (sitting cool and collected and a little tired in their 51) - we should all applaud if that turns true even though we'll flip and flop for a while as we figure out that the rudder counts - I mean really counts

So I want a switch to turn off the flying help -been bugging 1c for a year you'd think I'd at least get a "you are wrong. FM cannot support features you want. Study hard and one day you may understand' or whatever, as this could certainly be the case

gkll
04-03-2004, 03:54 AM
CPS i agree it would be less real if it was more difficult because we dont get the feedback from the ship - but just like a car sim it can be learned

Its like icons/full real that way

But it would be cool to really learn to fly to the edge and I think the game engine can give us more than we have - with a switch if you want realistic difficulty as you suggest

Extreme_One
04-03-2004, 05:48 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I was wondering.. which direction does a toilet flush on the equator? Can you answer that question Ivan???!??? LOL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actuially there is no vertex the water simply slides downwards without 'twisting'

Wierd eh? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

S! Simon
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the USAAF & RAF campaign folders here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-10.html).

Download "North and South" including the Japanese speech-pack here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-12.html). *NEW*

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/simplysimon-raf_sig.jpg

SeaFireLIV
04-03-2004, 07:07 AM
Wha? So the water turns one way above the Equater, then just straight down at middle , then the opposite way below the equater?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

WWMaxGunz
04-03-2004, 09:07 AM
I don't think it would stop the whining. No, just the opposite.
You say about 1.04 yet don't you remember the posts? Uproar!

If there was a realsim switch then that would not change things because there are so many players who can't think of anything but having all the FM realsims turned on. Many of those who insist on all switches on as a great matter of ego pride, to place themselves in the highest level as a requirement, it shows them as Experts. And then if things don't go how they want then they post the sim is wrong in exaggerated terms with the word PROOF stamped all over and show little or no evidence let alone proof of any kind. Virtual Experts are ones who post the most of these things.

For sure there's always something not real. It can't be otherwise. People know this and yet everything becomes a show stopper or an example to change some other things not needing change. How many times has a quote about the FW's staying to fight over the channel been used as an arguement that the FW-190's don't turn well enough? And it is never the person doing the flying, their hardware is always as good as the real thing and if they are not able to repeat everything they have read about then the sim must be at fault.

When you say that force feedback would nearly be required I counter that not only would it but also FF sticks would need to be 3 or 4 times as high, need fixed bases (bolted down or so) and respond correctly to trim. Never mind about G-forces.

So you say that making it harder by more real and direct control fidelity would stop the whining??? LMAO!


Neal

LEXX_Luthor
04-03-2004, 09:28 AM
SeaFire:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Wha? So the water turns one way above the Equater, then just straight down at middle , then the opposite way below the equater?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You will be able to see this yourself. Gibbage's PBY has a toilet with seat, and it should swirl one way in FB and swirl other way in PF when in, say, Coral Sea map. But they will probably get them reversed like Yak~3 compass. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

609IAP_Recon
04-03-2004, 09:53 AM
I hear some things in gklls post, but I'm not sure there is any evidence they don't exist now.

ie. you speak of uncordinated turns. If not proper rudder is applied you get excess yaw.

I do believe this is modelled gkill

Different blackouts are modelled as well for different aircraft.

Fatique is not modelled. I don't see why fatigue needs to be modelled though.

I'd rather have more realistic air currents http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Salute!

JG50_Recon

----
http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com

GR142-Pipper
04-03-2004, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> (...snip...)

RL pilots who have flown these ships (not cessnas please) say to get to that last 10% is a subtle, concentrated mind nerve and body draining event - not just the gforce - the sheer difficulty and skill needed to fly a ship to the tightest turn circle it can do.... but il2 you just slam the stick around however you want, pretty much<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In my experience, I can't think of any of the better pilots that simply "slam the stick around". The more full real the server, the more this is true. While you're correct that fatigue, pilot health, etc. can all influence an engagement, there are practical limits to what can be (and should be) modeled. Personally, I'd prefer to see modeling/programming efforts spent toward refining the flight and damage models than spent on these other matters. 'Just my take.

GR142-Pipper

JG14_Josf
04-03-2004, 11:36 AM
How about the drag penalty of yaw, is that modeled correctly, what would happen if planes flying coordinated had more advantage in speed over those not flying coordinated?

I thought fatigue was modeled when pulling too much g force. Pulling a lot tends to cause longer black outs no?

I thought toilets installed on the equator worked like a bidet.

CPS_Shadow
04-03-2004, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gkll:
Mass confusion I see.. well its about all I ever post about so I guess it seems obvious to me<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks for the clarification, this made a lot more sense.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Il2 has 'flying help' built into the FM. This is like the driving aids in car sims - 'steering help' for example.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am curious about this, I am aware that there is probably some built in help with the rudder. Most people don't have rudder peddles so it is somewhat a needed. There may also be some help with landing due to distance perception problems. Other than that... does this really exist in this game? What help do you think you're getting?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>RL pilots who have flown these ships (not cessnas please) say to get to that last 10% is a subtle, concentrated mind nerve and body draining event - not just the gforce - the sheer difficulty and skill needed to fly a ship to the tightest turn circle it can do.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well... part of that has to do with the fact that IRL if you screw up too badly you're dead, it tends to get the adrenaline pumping. Frankly that fear is a bit hard to modle in a sim. Conversely it's a lot easier to learn to take a plane to the edge in a sim because when you do die you can just hit refly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>but il2 you just slam the stick around however you want, pretty much<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe you need to adjust your joystick settings, because I know I can't do this.

CPS_Shadow

[This message was edited by CPS_Shadow on Sat April 03 2004 at 10:54 AM.]

gkll
04-03-2004, 11:54 AM
jg50 and 142 I agree this stuff is already largely in the game - this is good as it shows the physics are there and not just a bunch of vectors

Just a matter of degree. I figure that this game could ease off the pilot aids to the point where a real ace (I am not one) could kick my butt around the block and send me back to the drawing board to relearn high performance flight manuevers 101

Thats all. Pilot skill can, more or less, win out against a superior plane,right now. But I think, from carefully listening to my betters, that in RL pilot skill could quite easily overcome a plane disadvantage.... with the pilot aids turned off the emphasis would move to hustling the plane and not so much mindless tactics

Sure it would be tougher than RL because of so much more feedback from the real thing.... whatever. I'm pretty skilled at car sims and fair enough at RL racing... and I know how much feedback is missing on the sims, but I learned to compensate and read the subtle cues - and even with the few hours I put into this game I am sure I would eventually sort it out.

I don't want a realistic flight difficulty level, I want an unrealistically difficult realistic FM

Of course this is all there now - its just a little muted and a switch would be nice to have so I could simulate flight a little closer in this flight simulator.

gkll
04-03-2004, 12:10 PM
CPS here's the newbie stepping out on a limb

Maybe I'm wrong and except for the rudder help (which seems more or less documented judging from the posts) there isn't any 'flying help'

The posts are probably gone now but back maybe latter part of 2002 some guys who claimed to be RL high performance pilots did some sharp posting pointing out how much easier it was to fly on the edge in the sim. Not fear or adreline just plain difficulty. Cars and planes are not the same but believe me I am on solid ground when I say that getting a car to the edge of its capability is a very difficult and subtle thing indeed... and the RL pilots have testified that these overpowered birds with 1930's aerodynamics were no picnic.... it feels as if they ought to be a lot harder

So flame away I'm a self-admitted newbie with maybe 50 hours on this game over 2 years

I do know machines and I love this game - play it with my boys and ponder flying.... and suspect that we could have it better

gkll
04-03-2004, 12:32 PM
Jg50 posted - "I do believe this is modelled gkill"

Not a big deal but gkll is my initials and it is a pure accident it means good kill to a lot of people

I only get a certain number of 'good kills', more of them are 'lucky kills' or 'd*mn just about out of ammo kills' or "s**t I've just been killed' - lousy shot fair tactics middling pilot thats me

[This message was edited by gkll on Sat April 03 2004 at 11:41 AM.]

Hunde_3.JG51
04-03-2004, 12:53 PM
Without reading the whole thread:

I agree with gkll to some extent if I understand him correctly. I simply believe planes are too easy to fly in FB. Just some points/ideas. I'm no pilot and I may be wrong but....

-There is not much energy bleed for many planes.

-Some aircraft like the 109 & others were known to swing or drift to one side during dives (requiring rudder correction).

-Some planes like the 109 , 190 & others were known to skid in turns.

-The noses of planes stay perfectly stable with no dipping or rocking when they near a stall performing steep vertical climbs, they just drift up ever so gently until they reach a certain speed at which point they drift down as if on a rail. All the while being able to hold the nose up with it being stable and steady.

I just think planes are too forgiving in FB, I imagine the real thing was much more difficult. Right now I feel like I am flying planes designed for acrobatics, not performance. I think the use of rudder was more important in RL, especially at high speeds. And I think flight characteristics at low/near stall speeds were more harsh. Like I said, I may be wrong, these are just my thoughts.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Dnmy
04-03-2004, 01:23 PM
Well.. i think it's all moot.

Skidding is something the real pilot would feel immediately. Desktop pilots can't feel that. We can hardly see if we're not flying coordinated.

Furthermore in aircombat it's hardly about flying perfect maneuvers. Aircombat is not about aerobatics. It wasn't about flying the plane on the edge. If we have to believe what the real ww2 aces said, then surprise, tactics and shooting skill were the most important factors.

Piloting skill was considered the least important. "It's the rough maneuver that succeeds" In that sense FB/AEP does a pretty good job. It's about seeing first and shooting.
Piloting skill takes a distant last place.
So what's the problem?

gkll
04-03-2004, 01:38 PM
Well I've said my piece and it could've been a lot shorter and more coherent for sure.

Anyways dnmy the 'rough manuevers' are the point. They're rough (not all the time, some of the time..) because the pilots are flying those ships on the ragged edge of control. The blue angels (acrobatic team) are not out there flying to gain angles - they are well inside the flight envelope - its not acrobatics I'm talking about.... its pushing the edge of the envelope - and a lot of test pilots and others died over the years, before computers took over the flying in the latest ships

S!

CPS_Shadow
04-03-2004, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So flame away I'm a self-admitted newbie with maybe 50 hours on this game over 2 years<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry if my post came off as a flame. I was actually interested in what you had to say. I don't "think" I agree with you, but I was honestly interested, and wanting to know more.

I was hoping for an answer on the "what aids are in the game question." I got that you probably don't know the answer to that. In reading the posts here it seems less a case of "pilot aids" as a case of things not modeled in the game. Stalls, skids etc.

It comes down to this basically: If we are going to get rid of "pilot aids" the first thing we have to know is what are the pilot aids we want to get rid of.

If you just want to make the FM more difficult with out any correlation to reality, I think you won't garner much support.

So... I think if you want this thread to go some place, if you want Oleg to change something you will need to concentrate on one of the following.

A. Specific "pilot aids" you wish to see eliminated.
B. Flight characteristics that are not currently modeled that you would like to see modeled.
C. Specific errors in the FM of a/all plane(s)

Otherwise your request is just too general and really won't give Oleg an idea of what you want changed. I got that you may not know the answers to the above, maybe one of those RL pilots will speak up and fill us in.

For me it took many hours to get to the point of being able to hold the plane on the edge. I thought it felt pretty real. Not ever having done it in RL I can't say for sure, but it does seem pretty real to me. And I do find that a superior pilot will win out against a better plane in this game.

CPS_Shadow

Ki_Rin
04-03-2004, 03:26 PM
omg "slam the stick around"....its clear these pilots are flying La7s, where u usually can rip it all over the place and nary a complaint from the La7, provided you keep it pumped full of quarters.....try a 47 bud, then tell me u can ham-fist it across sky

WWMaxGunz
04-03-2004, 03:27 PM
DNMY;

Just because a lot of pilots didn't use aerobatics doesn't mean they don't or shouldn't make a difference. They did many times over. And clean flying is not aerobatics but it means having speed and making angles with less bleed. There's guys in my squad who do that very, very well but then a few of them are or were pro pilots, some ex-military pilots and one active Navy pilot that I know of. And GKLL, them guys do benefit in the sim from their knowlege and experience. You watch them fly and wonder how they got way up there so fast, or whatever other "huh?" type thing they've just done and maybe they have time to pass tips on. We have members who routinely do what I've seen 'bug' posts saying can't be done with this sim. Hell, even I can do a lot of that!

About the rudder. Yes I have done banked turns and watch the ball stay centered even though I don't add rudder. Maybe my cheap twisty stick just has the thing a bit over from bad calibration (I keep a dead zone that's not exactly narrow) but it's too often for my tastes. So I'll give ya that but there's still a margin that takes doing the right subtle things to get.


Neal

gkll
04-03-2004, 03:31 PM
CPS I didn't feel flamed by anyone - I'm just defensive and after I admitted I'm only guessing (that there are 'flying help'aids) I was expecting some flames...

1c has never said word one about this, that I know of. Car sims have plenty of aids (braking, steering ) to make things accessible - guys have said the real deal when it comes to planes is a lot tougher than we have.

The manuvers we don't have or don't work right have been posted on and off.... but really if it doesn't work because the physics model is not right or complete it would be expensive to address and probably needs a cray supercomputer to model, however if there are just 'aids' as in buffering stupid input or lessening the effect of RL physics on plane behavior then 1c could give us that... its reasonable - there is probably some of both is my guess

I could be badly out to lunch on this thats a fact - and I agree that just cranking the difficulty without a basis wouldnt get any or my support

So it is RL pilots and 1c who know whether I'm wearing out my keyboard for nothing or not

AusDerReihe
04-03-2004, 05:14 PM
just to clear things up on the direction of rotation in a flushing toilet:

http://www.bnl.gov/scied/mste/res/spin.html

don't believe everyting you hear http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-[AusDerReihe's Law: The total ammount of your whining will allways be less than the whinig you will get in return for whining in the first place]-

WWMaxGunz
04-03-2004, 10:40 PM
Cool! That one had me and I know about the angle of the flush water tube.

Best way to watch coriolis is to find a place with a Foucoults (sp?) pendulum and visit every hour for a while.


neal

Dnmy
04-04-2004, 07:26 AM
It's still moot to talk about these clean maneuvers. Because we as simpilots can not feel the "cleanliness" of these maneuvers. You'd feel the plane sideslipping in a real plane.

In FB you have to keep a look at the ballhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Which detracts from the aircombat game where keeping a lookout for bandits is a lot more important than watching instruments.

It will be nice to talk about these things when the limitations of the sim can be circumvented in some way that we get to "feel" the cleanliness of our maneuvers in an intuitive way.

Right now all we got is a slip indicator on the bottom of the instrument panel. We have no feedback of howmany G's we're pulling either. We only get blackouts or redouts but that doesn't tell me howmany G's i'm pulling. Which is another limitation of the game to provide feedback of how i'm flying the plane. In real life i'd get that kinda feedback.

If you can get Oleg to provide that kinda info on screen for us like on the speedbar, then it will start to make sense.

WWMaxGunz
04-04-2004, 08:44 AM
How I useta know in sims was by my speed. You lose speed when you don't fly right. Of course you have to know what to look for, how fast you should be going and a sim with penalties for getting past the edge plus inefficiency as you play it more and more inside (funny, on turns the outside is inside and vice-versa) makes a real difference. IL2 did that more than FB, IMHO. FB still has it and maybe that's what GKLL is noticing.


Neal

gkll
04-05-2004, 12:16 AM
MaxGunz and Dnmy I agree that to properly feel a plane out to the edge you need gforce and a sensation of slip. So how to get this as I agree you have no time to be looking at an instrument...

For the g force right now I find I use the force through the stick, as when you put g's on the ship the stick force increases. This is helpful but now that I think it about a nice 'g-cross' or 'g-circle' on the side of the screen would be handy. Just have an arrow which lengthens and shortens in the direction of the g force. cockpit at the top. Now this would only be approximate as g is 3d, but probably the vectors you mainly need to see are the 'lateral' and the 'vertical', you could probably skip the 'longitudinal'.

The slip is interesting. I tried to analyze how I do it with a car sim. What you see when you have slight slide in a car sim is the nose of the car not pointing in the direction of travel. I think it is always easy to see, because the track provides a fixed reference which is rushing by a meter away. The nose of my plane in relation to its (inevitably) distant invironment is not so easy. I can see when the nose moves, if the ground is in sight, but unlike the car sim there is no sense what my direction of travel is, so I don't instantly pick up the skid like I always do on any number of car sims. I tried this out by flying as low to the ground as possible, and yawing the plane, and then trying it at 1000m, and its true, you can 'feel' the yaw when there is a fixed visual reference close by.

So we need this somehow, because skids are pretty important.

I thought up a number of unworkable schemes to make this a part of the visual environment but they all had fatal flaws. It seems the simplest and probably the best would be a circular skid indicator, where the center of the circle is your direction of travel and a dot indicates where your nose is pointing. You could make them both (g-circle and this slip circle) translucent perhaps, i'm sure there are lots of ways

They have partial pressure suits already don't they? Those would really be the ticket but it seems hard to imagine anything likc that ever being in my price range.

Add a velocity vector to supplement the speed bar, and with practice you could get pretty good with a pretty raw flight model.

The_Red_Spoon
04-05-2004, 04:33 AM
The aircraft were much more twitchy in the first release of IL2 (e.g. you could send an aircraft into a flat spin just by nudging the stick), but I got round that by limiting the inputs on my joystick.

In FB/AEP, those limits seem to be there by default. However, when I first installed it my joystick settings were all over the place (way too over-sensitive - it was like the original IL2, but worse). So, you may be able to make FB/AEP very twitchy if that is what you want...

AEP is much more stall prone than FB though. You could loop the loop continously in an FB I-153 with full stick, but you can't in AEP (which is a good thing)

WWMaxGunz
04-05-2004, 10:39 AM
GKLL, wouldn't it be nice to have a low right corner small but not too small circle with a center dot representing your flight path and another dot representing where your nose is pointing? The whole circle would be 15 degrees, maybe less, so that if your nose reaches the edge you are already out of control or near it anyway.


Neal

gkll
04-05-2004, 11:41 PM
MaxGunz what you say is what I tried to describe. Is this an old request? If this has already come up (or something similar) what was the response from 1c?

Red you could be right. Point taken about the i-153 - although the actual plane physics could be improved at the same time that 'flying help' routines are cranked up. I'll make a big change to the joystick sensitivity and see how that compares to 1.04b.

I am starting to think that what I really want is feedback to 'feel' skid and the g vector. If I get those I can actually study up on the flying and derive an informed opinion based on plane behaviour For instance in a plane can you 'catch a skid'? Is 'oversteer' a viable term in flying? Without the slip circle and the g-circle I'll never know.

I think maybe I'll quit bugging 1c about 'flying help' but instead work on getting visual representation of needed feedback from the plane. That way I can really feel out the flight model, and if there is 'flying help' on I'll be ready to fly without it. And now that I think about it thisis all so obvious it is hard to believe it is not already in production at least in the test lab. Ic must already have this or something better, to shake down variations and additions for the flight model physics, and for new aircraft. And I've only played falcon1 and 3, a bit of EAW, and Il2,,,, are the g circle and the slip circle already in production in some other sim?

WWMaxGunz
04-06-2004, 09:37 AM
No, not an old request that I know of. Just a picture that came to mind from some of your descriptions.
Hey, I used to write software and since 1981 have regarded interfacing as an artform whether it be graphics or meaningful text, and controls. Old habit I'm afraid.


Neal

Ntago
04-06-2004, 04:07 PM
GKll poses some interesting questions,
that is as far I can see are not getting answered. This is Olegs ready room,is it not?
are the questions here directed to the developers?


So the question is, is there an on/off switch
For the FM that could be easily implemented into
The game interface?

If someone could answer the question maybe
GKll would be more coherent.

Oleg?

Chuck_Older
04-06-2004, 06:16 PM
The only way to stop the whining is with a good old fashioned ElectroMagnetic Pulse

*****************************
Punk Rockers in the UK, they won't notice anyway. They're all too busy fighting for a good place under the lighting~ Clash

gkll
04-06-2004, 10:47 PM
chuck it is a fact that I started this thread with a big subjective whine.

However now it has shifted to something concrete - tools to fly better.

g circle, slip circle and velocity vector. What chance 1c?

WWMaxGunz
04-06-2004, 11:21 PM
i think that the sticky thread on bug reports may have an address to send off to or that may be for bugs.

Oleg is also at mado@1c.ru

Be really concise and short, maybe include a picture with labels, and don't use words like concise or maybe that would be a good one, I dunno.

Good luck, I think maybe on a future sim but not FB at my guess.


Neal

gkll
04-06-2004, 11:50 PM
Neal good advice. I'll spend an hour or two and put together a little package and then post direct to Oleg. Who knows? The data is already an output from the game - this is not like asking for new physics.... predictable and doable programming which could be planned for. I program myself I have a bit of a clue.

Dnmy thanks for your comments, the g circle and the slip circle came direct from your post in a way - now I realize (doh!) that I need to get what I can from the existing program before I start whining about the flying difficulty, invoking the name of Chuck Yeager etc etc - it might well be more or less right but what's the point when you can't feel slip or g?

I'm out of here - into the vortex swirling around earlier that was threatening to take over the post.. or was that just a simple toilet?

S!