PDA

View Full Version : J7W1



Sillius_Sodus
12-02-2009, 11:33 AM
It's "over there" aaand it's pretty cool.

Sillius_Sodus
12-02-2009, 11:33 AM
It's "over there" aaand it's pretty cool.

RSS-Martin
12-02-2009, 11:45 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Comics/computer_dau.gif
This almost like certain "specialists" at AAA that start a thread by posting a link to SAS but otherwise have nothing to say.
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Comics/Smile.jpg

Sillius_Sodus
12-02-2009, 02:53 PM
Well, we can't post any links here, and other than the fact that it's a pretty cool plane, one that I've missed since the days of 'Aces Over The Pacific: 1946!', there's not much else to say... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

AndyJWest
12-02-2009, 03:23 PM
Can't post links, but a screenshot or two would be nice.

No doubt Wikipedia will give us some clues about the real thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J7W

Ah! the Shinden. Nice.

(See, L_F, even the Japanese knew where to put the wings http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

ElAurens
12-02-2009, 07:30 PM
It should have been in 1946 from the start.

Sillius_Sodus
12-02-2009, 07:37 PM
Screenshots? Here you go.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/Sillius_Sodus/shind-2.jpg
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/Sillius_Sodus/shind-4.jpg
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/Sillius_Sodus/shind-5.jpg
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/Sillius_Sodus/shind-6.jpg
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/Sillius_Sodus/shind-7.jpg
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/Sillius_Sodus/shind1.jpg

Choctaw111
12-02-2009, 07:37 PM
I haven't seen an update on that thing in months and now it's ready.
I'll go over there and check it out.
I always thought that was such a neat design.

ElAurens
12-02-2009, 07:51 PM
It's not ready if the thread I read is correct.

I wonder if all those folks raving about it realize they are flying a P-63?

Posting these mods for download before they are done properly is a disservice to the community IMHO.

Waldo.Pepper
12-02-2009, 07:52 PM
C0ckpit?

Kettenhunde
12-02-2009, 08:27 PM
Interesting. How does your game handle canard physics?

Stiletto-
12-02-2009, 08:29 PM
I agree this should have been in from the start, in my mind, this is the pinacle "what if" the war continued in the Pacific aircraft. Shinden vs. P-80 matchup, maybe some bearcats in there too for fleet defense. I suppose my views are a little skewed after playing Aces of the Pacific. It's cannon was deadly in that game.

Choctaw111
12-02-2009, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
It's not ready if the thread I read is correct.

I wonder if all those folks raving about it realize they are flying a P-63?

Posting these mods for download before they are done properly is a disservice to the community IMHO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read that when I got over there.
Huge disappointment.
I will wait until it is finished.

Sillius_Sodus
12-02-2009, 09:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
C0ckpit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ask and you shall receive.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/Sillius_Sodus/0212200919-57-18-1.jpg


Yes, it's a simplified cockpit and yes it has the P-63's fm, but then again who knows what it's fm was really like? I don't believe they ever completed the flight testing on it. As I recall, the one in AOTP 1946! wasn't the fastest or most maneuverable bird either. It was all about the guns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I'm also looking forward to the finished product but while we're waiting this will certainly do.

RSS-Martin
12-02-2009, 10:03 PM
Well with you boys already happy with the half finished stuff, that is a real impulse for the makers to make good stuff.....Just need to think of all those planes with Betty cockpits, George cockpits and A-20 cockpits great stuff, just what I want on a realistic sim.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

One has the feeling it is more about quantity than quality. Guess I am old fashioned, but I rather have a 100 excellent planes where almost every little detail is right than 300 which are just better frankenplanes, on a fast run slapped to gether, to quiet the wheiners, who just canīt stop posting, give me give me.

This is almost like comparing onliners with offliners, two differant worlds. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Sillius_Sodus
12-03-2009, 12:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
Well with you boys already happy with the half finished stuff, that is a real impulse for the makers to make good stuff.....Just need to think of all those planes with Betty cockpits, George cockpits and A-20 cockpits great stuff, just what I want on a realistic sim.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

One has the feeling it is more about quantity than quality. Guess I am old fashioned, but I rather have a 100 excellent planes where almost every little detail is right than 300 which are just better frankenplanes, on a fast run slapped to gether, to quiet the wheiners, who just canīt stop posting, give me give me.

This is almost like comparing onliners with offliners, two differant worlds. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point.

Nevertheless, it's a fine effort which will be complete with it's own fm and other stuff soon. As for the new aircraft somehow lowering the realism of the sim, maybe they do, maybe not. Many of the aircraft cockpits and load-outs in the vanilla game have been redone even though I believe a lot of research went into their original creation. We don't hear too many complaints about those.

On that basis one could even argue that the aircraft we have in the vanilla game are just as much wip's as the J7W, they're just further along in their development cycles.

We'll never get enough aircraft in IL2 and those we have will probably never be "done", which when you think of it is not a bad thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif.

PanzerAce
12-03-2009, 03:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
Well with you boys already happy with the half finished stuff, that is a real impulse for the makers to make good stuff.....Just need to think of all those planes with Betty cockpits, George cockpits and A-20 cockpits great stuff, just what I want on a realistic sim.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

One has the feeling it is more about quantity than quality. Guess I am old fashioned, but I rather have a 100 excellent planes where almost every little detail is right than 300 which are just better frankenplanes, on a fast run slapped to gether, to quiet the wheiners, who just canīt stop posting, give me give me.

This is almost like comparing onliners with offliners, two differant worlds. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you want some cheese and crackers with that wine?


Seriously, grow up. It isn't like this is TD or Oleg and Co. diverting time from new patches or SOW to build another fantasy plane. This is an enthusiast project (much like the Do-335 was originally, and look how good that turned out), and as such, is obviously a WIP. Hell, the maker of this plane probably doesn't even make games for a living, they just know how to make 3d models, and they decided to share with the community. You're acting like there are a finite number of man hours that can be put into creating combat flight sim material, but the reality is that mods make it so that the available manpower is HUGE compared to Oleg and Co. Some of the planes created aren't the best in quality (look at the P2V), many, many others are of the same quality or better than the stock planes (have you SEEN the Yak cockpits? Jesus, there's the best argument for wonder woman views possible). And yet there are still people like you that complain about lack of planes in vanilla patches, complain about modded planes, and would probably complain even if EVERY. SINGLE. PLANE. that flew during WWII was perfectly modded.


In short: grow the hell up. This isn't 100 wonderful planes vs. 300 ok planes. This is 100 wonderful planes AND 300 ok planes WHICH CAN BE MADE BETTER. Don't like planes with hack job cockpits until the real one is modeled? Then here's a new idea: DON'T FLY THEM. Hell, you don't even have to DL them then. Go ahead and fly vanilla 4.09, basking in the glory of some truly pathetic cockpits.

&lt;/blowing off steam&gt;

RSS-Martin
12-03-2009, 03:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PanzerAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
Well with you boys already happy with the half finished stuff, that is a real impulse for the makers to make good stuff.....Just need to think of all those planes with Betty cockpits, George cockpits and A-20 cockpits great stuff, just what I want on a realistic sim.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

One has the feeling it is more about quantity than quality. Guess I am old fashioned, but I rather have a 100 excellent planes where almost every little detail is right than 300 which are just better frankenplanes, on a fast run slapped to gether, to quiet the wheiners, who just canīt stop posting, give me give me.

This is almost like comparing onliners with offliners, two differant worlds. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you want some cheese and crackers with that wine?


Seriously, grow up. It isn't like this is TD or Oleg and Co. diverting time from new patches or SOW to build another fantasy plane. This is an enthusiast project (much like the Do-335 was originally, and look how good that turned out), and as such, is obviously a WIP. Hell, the maker of this plane probably doesn't even make games for a living, they just know how to make 3d models, and they decided to share with the community. You're acting like there are a finite number of man hours that can be put into creating combat flight sim material, but the reality is that mods make it so that the available manpower is HUGE compared to Oleg and Co. Some of the planes created aren't the best in quality (look at the P2V), many, many others are of the same quality or better than the stock planes (have you SEEN the Yak cockpits? Jesus, there's the best argument for wonder woman views possible). And yet there are still people like you that complain about lack of planes in vanilla patches, complain about modded planes, and would probably complain even if EVERY. SINGLE. PLANE. that flew during WWII was perfectly modded.


In short: grow the hell up. This isn't 100 wonderful planes vs. 300 ok planes. This is 100 wonderful planes AND 300 ok planes WHICH CAN BE MADE BETTER. Don't like planes with hack job cockpits until the real one is modeled? Then here's a new idea: DON'T FLY THEM. Hell, you don't even have to DL them then. Go ahead and fly vanilla 4.09, basking in the glory of some truly pathetic cockpits.

&lt;/blowing off steam&gt; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh love those comments about "growing up" you must be a real senior Methusalem hmm??
If you are happy with frankenplanes, and half finished models slip shod quality and poor workmanship fine, I am not. Who are you to tell me what opinion I may have?
So just stuff your childish comment about "growing up" Kid.

Opinions are like A-holes everyone has one.

PanzerAce
12-03-2009, 04:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RSS-Martin:
Oh love those comments about "growing up" you must be a real senior Methusalem hmm??
If you are happy with frankenplanes, and half finished models slip shod quality and poor workmanship fine, I am not. Who are you to tell me what opinion I may have?
So just stuff your childish comment about "growing up" Kid.

Opinions are like A-holes everyone has one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not a senior anything. I'm not happy with fraken planes, half finished models, or crap workmanship, but you know what? I'm also not paying a dime for any of the aformentioned stuff, so it isn't my place to whine about them. I honestly don't give a rat's *** if you don't like the J7W1. But you know what? You don't have to use it. That's the wonderful thing about mods: the ability to pick and choose what you want.

Hell, everyone in this thread was saying that they were waiting for the finished product, and then you come along and paint them all with the brush of impatience.

Hell man, you seem like the kind of kid that wins a free shopping spree in a candy store, but they don't have twinkies, so you're going to throw a tantrum.

You know what else every one here has? The ability to walk away from the community and the mods when they find it no longer suits their needs. How about if you use that ability now, since you obviously aren't going to be happy with anything that happens between now and SoW.

Before you go though, answer me this: is 4.09 poor workmanship? Is 4.08? Are any of the iterations of the game and the planes in them examples of half finished models, frankenplanes, and poor workmanship in your opinion? Because last I checked, the G.55s didn't have full models yet. Some of the 109s have performance numbers that corespond to no known variants, and, once again, look at the yak pits if you want poor qorkmanship.

fabianfred
12-03-2009, 04:25 PM
Some people have never contributed anything to this game...apart from critical comments....... never made a mod or map or skin or mission.....consumers.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

ElAurens
12-03-2009, 04:40 PM
Perhaps you missed a vital point.

Quality product for your customers, that's all I'm concerned about. Releasing alpha/beta builds does no one any good.

For every one really great mod there are ten others that are not worth the time to download them. Why? No testing, no quality standards, no direction.

Do quality work, make sure your mod really works with the rest of the sim, test the h3ll out of it, then release a finished product that the modder can be proud of, and that the end user can put in his install and use without issues.

It's not hard to understand is it?

Gibbage1
12-03-2009, 04:54 PM
Customers implies a transaction. I.E. PAYING. Did you PAY for your J7W1? No?

There is an old saying. Something about a gift horse, and mouth.

How can anyone complain about free stuff? If you dont like it, you didnt pay for it. No loss.

Also, there are no real final tool sets for these mods. The most you can EVER expect from these mods without proper tools is something "half-assed" like this.

Metatron_123
12-03-2009, 05:41 PM
Surely there are exceptions even for you, also there are benefits to releasing betas-making templates and skins for example

Gibbage1
12-03-2009, 06:14 PM
The binifits of releasing a beta is very braud in that as a modder, there is only so much testing you and your friends can do. Releasing a beta allows for a much bigger group to test for you, and you also get back critical feedback for making the product better.

Sillius_Sodus
12-03-2009, 06:19 PM
I suppose it also depends on how far you are willing to suspend you sense of disbelief in the sim. To me there is a delicate balance between realism and fun. On the one hand the J7W may be unrealistic in it's present form, on the other it wouldn't be much fun to have the engines on late war Japanese aircraft under-perform or fail repeatedly for the sake of historical accuracy and realism.

Metatron_123
12-03-2009, 06:38 PM
Exactly right. The ideal thing is to have all aircraft perform as they should

Gibbage1
12-03-2009, 09:00 PM
Also, who is to say it didnt fly like a P-63? I know two vastly differant aircraft, but I think the J7W1 only flew 3 times? There simply is not enough flight data on it to do anything but guess.

triad773
12-03-2009, 09:10 PM
There's stuff I don't like mod-wise.

But what's the point of saying anything negative?

Will it stop people from making mods because someone is unhappy of the quality, workmanship, etc??

Will it stop people from downloading them and enjoying them, whether your tastes match what they like, or not?

What's the point of raining on someone's parade?
Peeing in their beer?
or otherwise ruining consumer's enjoyment?
Maybe their opinion of what they think is cool is different from some? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I like some, some I don't. Who cares what I think either way? Sage advice for any critic before clicking the 'Submit' button http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

fabianfred
12-04-2009, 12:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Perhaps you missed a vital point.
<span class="ev_code_RED">that I have the final word</span>
Quality product for your customers, that's all I'm concerned about. Releasing alpha/beta builds does no one any good.
<span class="ev_code_RED">except those who like it and bother to say thank you to the maker...instead of complain upon another forum..</span>
For every one really great mod there are ten others that are not worth the time to download them. Why? No testing, no quality standards, no direction.
<span class="ev_code_RED">..simple...don't download them...or delete them..easy?</span>
Do quality work, make sure your mod really works with the rest of the sim, test the h3ll out of it, then release a finished product that the modder can be proud of, and that the end user can put in his install and use without issues.

It's not hard to understand is it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_RED">always makes me laugh..."they don't understand me"...meaning they don't agree with me....how naughty of them..</span>

Sillius_Sodus
12-04-2009, 12:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by triad773:
There's stuff I don't like mod-wise.

But what's the point of saying anything negative?

Will it stop people from making mods because someone is unhappy of the quality, workmanship, etc??

Will it stop people from downloading them and enjoying them, whether your tastes match what they like, or not?

What's the point of raining on someone's parade?
Peeing in their beer?
or otherwise ruining consumer's enjoyment?
Maybe their opinion of what they think is cool is different from some? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I like some, some I don't. Who cares what I think either way? Sage advice for any critic before clicking the 'Submit' button http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, when it comes to mods we shouldn't cr*p on folks because they don't agree with us. However, this is the internet so..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Saburo_0
12-05-2009, 10:12 PM
[[/QUOTE]

I agree, when it comes to mods we shouldn't cr*p on folks because they don't agree with us. However, this is the internet so..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif[/QUOTE]
LOL how apro po

rnzoli
12-06-2009, 01:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by triad773:
Who cares what I think either way? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mod pack creators, server operators, dynamic campaign designers, squadron COs, your regular friends online, just to name a few! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If the quality of the mod is good, it will get a reputation and for that, everyone's opinion, quiet or loud, counts. So I don't see what's wrong with actually stating the shortcomings of certain mods.

If you contribute to the community, dealing with the responses (neative and positive too)are part of the package deal. Whether you got paid for it, or not, is totally irrelevant in this context. Consumers imply consumption http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

RSS-Martin
12-06-2009, 03:17 AM
You are a bit optimistic there.
With in squads you can discuss stuff like that yes, but otherwise? Look at the reactions. Better to decide with ones feet, and otherwise keep ones opinion to oneself. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

jamesblonde1979
12-06-2009, 04:43 AM
Therte's a whole stack of never-flew aircraft in the stock game, why is eveybody whining about a modded one.

Besides, it probably won't be used on many of the best servers anyway.

Frankthetank36
12-06-2009, 12:15 PM
470mph and 4 30mms ain't no joke... But how does it climb at only 2460ft/min? Having a P-63 fm really does the Shinden's speed injustice.

Viper2005_
12-06-2009, 12:27 PM
Since when did the P-63 do 470 mph?

Or do you think the Shinden should do 470 mph, and that the P-63 FM therefore cripples it? Did the Shinden ever get to 470 mph under testing?

Most piston engined fighters suffered from bad performance estimates at speeds above about 400 mph, because transonic flow was very much a "black art" in those days, and quite small errors in drag estimation or prop efficiency will result is large speed errors because at constant input power thrust is inversely proportional to velocity.

As such there was a pretty strong tendency for manufacturers to over-estimate the performance of their products prior to flight test data becoming available (how much of this was a cynical ploy to secure funding is debatable).

Frankthetank36
12-06-2009, 12:52 PM
Yes I think having a 410mph P-63 FM cripples it. I don't know if the 470mph (I have seen other sources saying "only" 465mph) was tested or estimated, but the plane did have one test flight.

jamesblonde1979
12-06-2009, 12:54 PM
what was the design specification for the Shinden?

Blottogg
12-06-2009, 06:50 PM
Good point Viper. Lacking actual flight test data, I'm not sure how to build a plausible FM for the J7W1. I suppose you could plug-n'-chug data into X-Plane, and see what comes out, but that might be a IP problem (using the output from one sim to provide input to another). I'm not sure what other tools would be available to the layman attempting to construct a plausible FM. Then there's the problem of CFD/computer modeling vs. wind tunnel. CFD is useful for understanding/refining known phenomena, while the wind tunnel is better for discovering/exploring unknowns. Generating wind tunnel data for an aircraft for sole use in a flight sim would be prohibitively expensive, however. Another question I'd have would be the effectiveness of the Shinden's engine cooling.

It is posted in the beta section, and as such is a good looking model. Were it offered as a final product, it would be worthy of all the histronics. It is not however, so I suggest everybody take a breath and calm down. The work done so far looks very good. By posting it in the beta section, hopefully more data and assistance in replacing the placeholder FM and cockpit will be forthcoming. I look forward to this project's progress.

Kettenhunde
12-06-2009, 07:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There simply is not enough flight data on it to do anything but guess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can make a damn good guess though if you know what your doing.

Nobody answered my question on the canard physics. Is that because nobody knows what I am talking about?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Most piston engined fighters suffered from bad performance estimates at speeds above about 400 mph, because transonic flow was very much a "black art" in those days, and quite small errors in drag estimation or prop efficiency will result is large speed errors because at constant input power thrust is inversely proportional to velocity.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Somebody catch me! Viper, I am glad to see you write this fact down.

I had to fix this part though:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> As such there was a pretty strong tendency for manufacturers to over-estimate the performance of their products. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes and No depending on the firm and their philosophy. Just as many underestimated as overestimated. The largest influence on the confidence level of flight test data is skill of the pilot. Atmospheric stability and aircraft condition are the other major influences.

On paper you don't have those factors to worry about and can get perfect performance in stable, standard air with a perfect pilot and a perfect airplane. Many firms compensate for this fact while others do not.

Flight test data IS calculations as well. The data has to be reduced by the engineers and those transonic properties are properties of how we model the environment not the aircraft or instruments.

The largest issue is when the customer does not understand aircraft performance and how the environment affects it. Then you get complaints from them when the airplane won't carry the load or climb as per the standard day figures in the POH on a hot summer day.

It is the same calculations and environmental corrections if it just a pure paper or flight test data.

All the best,

Crumpp

Gibbage1
12-06-2009, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Nobody answered my question on the canard physics. Is that because nobody knows what I am talking about?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ask Oleg. I doubt IL2 can even simulate canard flight characteristics.

Blottogg
12-06-2009, 07:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Nobody answered my question on the canard physics. Is that because nobody knows what I am talking about?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ask Oleg. I doubt IL2 can even simulate canard flight characteristics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe not directly (I don't know, either). But since the control input model is force (not displacement) based, you could simulate the canard stalling first by driving the force required to increase pitch to infinity. In effect, a virtual stick-kicker. I'm not sure how that would work in extreme conditions, but it might provide a first order of magnitude approximation.

Kettenhunde
12-06-2009, 07:42 PM
What about ground effect and anhedral? Or the CG moments/margins?

It's not a tractor so you won't have deep stall issues as you mention. That is one of the cool things about canards is the stall.

I will bet the Japanese were smart enough to make it with very low stability margins.

Wonder what the sizing is and mounting stations? You know how to figure out the stability margins?

This is kind of neat, IMHO.

I bet you could fudge it as you mention if someone knew the program well enough.

ElAurens
12-06-2009, 09:41 PM
I don't really know if ground effect is accurately modeled or not, as I have never seen the code, but some aircraft in the sim certainly act that way. The Go 229, H8K Emily, and one of the long span short chord German rides, TA I think, seem to float forever above the field/water on landing.

I'll ask some questions of guys on one of the modding teams and see what they say about eh Canard thing.

Swivet
12-06-2009, 11:04 PM
The Ky?sh? J7W1 Shinden ("Magnificent Lightning") fighter was a World War II Japanese propeller-driven aircraft prototype that was built in a canard design. The wings were attached to the tail section and stabilizers were on the front. The propeller was also in the rear, in a pusher configuration. It was expected to be a highly maneuverable interceptor, but only two were finished before the end of war. Plans were also drawn up for a jet-powered version (J7W2 Shinden Kai),but this never left the drawing board. The J designation was used by land based fighters of the Imperial Japanese Navy[3] and W is for Watanabe factory produced (later Ky?sh?)


Wow that thing is as strange as the Lerche http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Romanator21
12-06-2009, 11:56 PM
Except that this thing flew.

RSS-Martin
12-07-2009, 12:00 AM
Yes only differance it actually flew, where as that Lerche thing never left paper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW_8gi10spM

Blottogg
12-07-2009, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
What about ground effect and anhedral? Or the CG moments/margins?

It's not a tractor so you won't have deep stall issues as you mention. That is one of the cool things about canards is the stall.

I will bet the Japanese were smart enough to make it with very low stability margins.

Wonder what the sizing is and mounting stations? You know how to figure out the stability margins?

This is kind of neat, IMHO.

I bet you could fudge it as you mention if someone knew the program well enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly Kettenhunde. Not knowing if the sim engine can handle the canard's benign stall behavior directly, I'm trying to figure out a way to "fake it". With the conventional aircraft in the sim, there is enough pitch authority (negative lift on the rear wing, if you will) to increase the AoA and stall the "front" wing. Preventing the sim pilot from being able to pull the stick back far enough is the only way I know to model the front wing stalling before the back wing loses authority (i.e. stalls) given my limited knowledge of the sim engine.

Like ElAurens said, I don't think ground effect is modeled. In any case, the Shinden's gear is long enough (for prop clearance) that ground effect wouldn't be as big a factor as with the planes he mentioned. Following links and doing a bit more reading, the Shinden apparently had problems with vibration of the prop shaft, and would yaw to the right when power was applied at low speed. Given the direction of rotation of the prop, that makes sense (the yaw being caused by p-factor), especially since its rudders weren't in the prop wash like a conventional aircraft's rudder, which hinders their low speed authority. These problems didn't seem to be insurmountable, and give some credibility to the flight notes posted here (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/kyushu-j7w1-shinden-canard-prototype-4615.html) . Interestingly, this link also has some engine, flap and CG parameters, though the machine translation makes my head hurt.

Like Romanator 21 and RSS-Martin said, the Shinden flew (albeit only three times, and never with the gear up), unlike the Lerche, and was a less unconventional aircraft to boot. Creating an FM that comes close to what it would have flown like should be possible, keeping in mind that important details that Viper mentioned are unknown, injecting a healthy amount of uncertainty (though no more than the Lerche or the Gotha). Assumptions will have to be made, and depending on how "uber" or "porked" those assumptions make the Shinden's FM, expect the inevitable whining to go in that direction. Unless someone uncovers a long lost Aerospace PhD thesis examining the Shinden's theoretical performance in detail, I don't see an easy way to resolve the uncertainties, short of a slightly less informed WAG.

Kettenhunde
12-07-2009, 08:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Exactly Kettenhunde. Not knowing if the sim engine can handle the canard's benign stall behavior directly, I'm trying to figure out a way to "fake it". With the conventional aircraft in the sim, there is enough pitch authority (negative lift on the rear wing, if you will) to increase the AoA and stall the "front" wing. Preventing the sim pilot from being able to pull the stick back far enough is the only way I know to model the front wing stalling before the back wing loses authority (i.e. stalls) given my limited knowledge of the sim engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I understand. The neat thing about a well designed canard fighter with low stability margins &lt;canards are naturally very stable&gt; is you make it where the nose just kind of skips as the canard stalls. With the lift/drag relationship on canards, you end up with an aircraft that sustain a large amount of load factor at high velocity for a given amount of power.

There is a good reason why Klaus Savier chose a canard design for his efficiency records.

http://www.lightspeedengineeri...alities/Articles.htm (http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/Technicalities/Articles.htm)

If the arm the canard is mounted on is done properly, the canard vortices will hit the main wing outboard portion on the up and the inboard down. This helps with good stall characteristics of the main wing. If you set the canard up right then, it will stall before the main wing. This allows the aircraft to exhibit excellent control and stall characteristics. I am sure you know this and I only repeat for the readers.

If the game allows you to limit elevator travel then I think you stick shaker idea is a good one. Limiting elevator travel is how conventional aircraft stall characteristics are generally tuned.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I don't think ground effect is modeled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it won't be hard to simulate. The anhedral canards require means they do not benefit at all from ground effect. In fact it has the opposite effect and destroys the lift of the main wing.

What this does is make canard aircraft almost immune to crosswinds as they fall right down to the runway and stick. The downside is your landing, take off, and rotation speeds are much higher in a canard aircraft. A pusher installation make the propeller more vulnerable to FOD strikes from the nose gear and whatever it picks up on its own. It is not an airplane that will do well from short unimproved airstrips.

Basically give it a long take off and landing roll will be pretty good since you don't have to deal with crosswinds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Following links and doing a bit more reading, the Shinden apparently had problems with vibration of the prop shaft, and would yaw to the right when power was applied at low speed. Given the direction of rotation of the prop, that makes sense (the yaw being caused by p-factor), especially since its rudders weren't in the prop wash like a conventional aircraft's rudder, which hinders their low speed authority. These problems didn't seem to be insurmountable, and give some credibility to the flight notes posted here . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Directional stability is an Achilles heel of all canard designs. You can expect them to be more susceptible to power effects. You can see by the location of the vertical stab that these problems are going to be even more of an issue in the J7W1. I would expect the vertical stab to be engulfed in the wake of the canard at some velocity and to exhibit some influence over a larger velocity band. That is one reason why **** Rutan put them on the wingtips. You know what that will do to "S" of your control surface. He probably set it up to anticipating engulfment to occur below Vmc but is having an issue such that the canards wake influences the vertical stab area at a higher velocity than the design point. Not a fact, just an informed speculation. Canards offer some great advantages but are very difficult to design and set up properly. It is easy to design a bad one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Unless someone uncovers a long lost Aerospace PhD thesis examining the Shinden's theoretical performance in detail, I don't see an easy way to resolve the uncertainties, short of a slightly less informed WAG.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't worry about it too much. It is a home PC game and that places far more limits on any flight simulation.

If you have some basic knowledge of the design, reference areas, power available, some V speeds, or even airfoil you can make good representation that is will within the realm of significant digits.

That is all X-plane does....

Frankthetank36
12-07-2009, 09:21 AM
^actually Cirrus used X-plane to help design their new Vision very light jet

Kettenhunde
12-07-2009, 09:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">^actually Cirrus used X-plane to help design their new Vision very light jet </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I know that. It helped and it was not the "home PC" version of X-plane.

http://www.x-plane.com/pg_levels.html

Some of the professional software requires a stand alone computer to run specific apps. It has very very little in common with your home PC version besides brand name.

Gibbage1
12-07-2009, 10:57 AM
Its easy to get close when the engine supports it. I recently finished and released my Cirrus Vision for FSX. Since its a stanard config, and FSX supports a lot of FM features, its easy to get close to what an aircraft will fly like.

http://www.fsd-international.c...gar/Vision/index.htm (http://www.fsd-international.com/Hangar/Vision/index.htm)

The issue is originally, Oleg only made IL2 to support 1 aircraft, the IL2 itself. All other aircraft were sort of "tacced on" later. Dual/multi engine support didnt even come till much later in FB, and same with high altitude modeling. Its a very limited engine FM wise, and doesent even support 0 torque on aircraft like the P-38. I really REALLY doubt Oleg programmed in cannard FM, considering no aircraft in-game has it.

Im sure in BoB, he will have learned from the past.

Kettenhunde
12-07-2009, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its a very limited engine FM wise, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it is on a home PC, they all are limited.

Why are some guys in denial over that fact?

AndyJWest
12-07-2009, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its a very limited engine FM wise, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it is on a home PC, they all are limited.

Why are some guys in denial over that fact? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, regardless of whether a simulation is run on a Cray or a Sinclair Spectrum, it is still only a simulation, so limited. Two things make a difference though: hardware & software. Both should have improved significantly since IL-2 was written, so hopefully BoB:SoW will be better. The question I'd ask is how accurate is the SoW software likely to be in comparason to the 'real' software used for design? If it gets things sufficiently right that extra computing power wouldn't make a noticable difference in everyday use, that is good enough for me.

Gibbage1
12-07-2009, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Actually, regardless of whether a simulation is run on a Cray or a Sinclair Spectrum, it is still only a simulation, so limited. Two things make a difference though: hardware & software. Both should have improved significantly since IL-2 was written, so hopefully BoB:SoW will be better. The question I'd ask is how accurate is the SoW software likely to be in comparason to the 'real' software used for design? If it gets things sufficiently right that extra computing power wouldn't make a noticable difference in everyday use, that is good enough for me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given the limited resources, budget, and time, I would not count on NASA using it to simulate the next space shuttle. These flight sims only use very basic info, such as profile, wing area, HP, weight, cD and other very basic info to resolv a base FM. Then the team will go in and tweak charactoristics based on pilot reports. The software in no way looks at the shape of the aircraft and figures out how it flies from that.

From my understanding, even X-Plane does not take the entire aircraft into consideration for its FM. You still need to fill in many other details by hand. It does look at wing area and shape to do some of the work for you, but its NOT as simple as modeling an aircraft, and letting the sim figure it out.

Even advanced fluid simulations performed by experts cant tell you every aspect of how an aircraft will fly, but it will get you very close. Those types of simulation's take highly trained teams of hundreds of engineers and massive servers. Its nothing a home PC will do anytime soon, let alone in a game.

Frankthetank36
12-07-2009, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Its easy to get close when the engine supports it. I recently finished and released my Cirrus Vision for FSX. Since its a stanard config, and FSX supports a lot of FM features, its easy to get close to what an aircraft will fly like.

http://www.fsd-international.c...gar/Vision/index.htm (http://www.fsd-international.com/Hangar/Vision/index.htm)

The issue is originally, Oleg only made IL2 to support 1 aircraft, the IL2 itself. All other aircraft were sort of "tacced on" later. Dual/multi engine support didnt even come till much later in FB, and same with high altitude modeling. Its a very limited engine FM wise, and doesent even support 0 torque on aircraft like the P-38. I really REALLY doubt Oleg programmed in cannard FM, considering no aircraft in-game has it.

Im sure in BoB, he will have learned from the past. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't notice any torque effects in the P-38, thing seems perfectly stable when accelerating if the rudder/elevator trims are neutral

ElAurens
12-07-2009, 08:06 PM
Just did some asking of those in the know, apparently the game engine can indeed deal with the canard layout, as much as it can with any other, given the limitations that affect all "aircraft" in the sim.

Gibbage1
12-07-2009, 09:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frankthetank36:
I don't notice any torque effects in the P-38, thing seems perfectly stable when accelerating if the rudder/elevator trims are neutral </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When a P-38 stalls in-game, it drops 1 wing, the result of torque. Since there was no torque, and symetrical thrust/prop wash, there would be 0 tendency to favor a wing on stall. This can not be fixed in the game, and that is directly from Oleg.

The Torque on the P-38 is greatly reduced to were you dont notice it, but it wont stall flat as seen in the training video.

Saburo_0
12-07-2009, 09:14 PM
Thanks Gibbage, do you think the engine could be manipulated enough to bring the canard layout into the ball park of what we have with the P-38?

Offline is my thing and I enjoyed the Shinden in the EAW mod stuff so I'm not hard to please, tho I've avoided mods so far.
OH, P.S. if I turn off torque in the difficulty does the 38 perform more realistically? Or do ai a/c also avoid torque and screw the whole equation?

Gibbage1
12-07-2009, 10:32 PM
The 3rd party mod groups really REALLY dont have enough of the game unlocked to add something like that. Honestly, most of what I have worked on with other groups have been just short of hacks without any sort of SDK or code access. Everything is just a modification of something else. The Mig-15 and F-86 are just P-80 FM! Its the best they can do with what they have.

Honestly, given the limitations, some things that they were able to do is simply amazing! Zuti's moving dogfight for one is outstanding given how limited his access to code is. To have AI aircraft and tanks on an inline DM server is great for campaign battles. You really feel the pressure when a collum of tanks is moving in on your forward airbase, and you need to bring BF-110's in from the back, or loose that airfield to the enemy!!! Lots of fun, even flying a Ju-52 in for support!

Blottogg
12-08-2009, 02:58 AM
ElAurens, thanks for checking. I'll continue to watch this project with interest.

Kettenhunde, no need to sell me on the virtues of canards. Our senior design project was a close air support aircraft (the GD engineer teaching the course wanted something besides the typical business jet), and the requirements included carrying 6xMk82 500 lb. bombs, with an alternate ferry configuration with external fuel tanks. My initial solution was a canard with a single hardpoint on the fuselage at the CG, where we could mount either a MER (Multiple Ejector Rack) for the bombs, or a single big honkin' fuel tank. Unfortunately, in those pre-interweb days, I couldn't get any drag data on the MER, and putting the bombs under the main wing of a canard on single racks (which we did have data for) was a bad idea from a CG standpoint, so we had to go with a more conventional layout.

Xiolablu3
12-08-2009, 08:01 AM
Guys, why does it need those tiny wheels on the rudders?

Is it to stop it tipping over?

EDIT: I think I have guessed. Is it for landing if the aircraft comes in with its nose high, so the rudders dont get broken off?

Frankthetank36
12-08-2009, 08:39 AM
^because the original had a prop strike before it could take off

RSS-Martin
12-08-2009, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Guys, why does it need those tiny wheels on the rudders?

Is it to stop it tipping over?

EDIT: I think I have guessed. Is it for landing if the aircraft comes in with its nose high, so the rudders dont get broken off? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just watch the youtube entry it is all explained there why the wheels where mounted there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW_8gi10spM

Kettenhunde
12-08-2009, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Kettenhunde, no need to sell me on the virtues of canards.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, Good luck in your flight model!

Romanator21
12-08-2009, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Guys, why does it need those tiny wheels on the rudders?

Is it to stop it tipping over?

EDIT: I think I have guessed. Is it for landing if the aircraft comes in with its nose high, so the rudders dont get broken off? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The video is grainy, and it took me a couple of times to catch this. While the machine is doing a fast taxi you can see a lot of dirt is kicked up, and the next shot shows the propeller blades are all bent backwards. In the final 5 seconds of the video, the plane finally makes its flight, and lands safely.

Those wheels were added to help prevent prop strikes only.

Saburo_0
12-08-2009, 02:03 PM
Lots of good info here, thanks all for sharing!