PDA

View Full Version : new FM first hand



dali
03-18-2005, 04:26 PM
As Oleg noted, some people will have difficulties with new FM. This needs a little explanation. New FM is way better than the old one, it is so advanced (even in this stage of testing), that will require a new approach to using your airplane. All their weakneses and strenghts are now much more visible. It will also require more pilot thinking i.e. joystick is now more flying stick as it was before. You will have to thik more about speeds, g-forces, overloads etc.

I'm not in position to tell you details, I just wanted to say - all the testers love new fm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BluesmanSF
03-18-2005, 04:33 PM
**** I just hope my rig will still run PF.. But thanks Dali, I'm so fri**in thrilled of PF at the moment! So I guess the torgue-modelling is better now?

Bytheway, I love your sig.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

dali
03-18-2005, 04:36 PM
much better

MEGILE
03-18-2005, 04:56 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

p1ngu666
03-18-2005, 05:07 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Wolf-Strike
03-18-2005, 05:51 PM
Wow......you just never know with Oleghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RichardI
03-18-2005, 06:35 PM
I can't believe all this hype over the flight models. What is this all about? - difficulty? BULL!!!
If the real-life planes were THAT difficult to fly, there would never have been any air battles or bombings. I've read dozens of books written by pilots, talked to real-life present-day pilots, talked to WWII pilots and the planes were not that difficult to fly. Period.
I hope the flight models are truly realistic, not difficult for the sake of difficulty. One had to be careful - not fearful.
My 2 cents.
Rich http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
http://ca.geocities.com/wrhewitt@rogers.com/britain-g.jpg

Tooz_69GIAP
03-18-2005, 06:46 PM
I wonder if the P-38 will have the zero torque it was always meant to have with these new FMs??

carguy_
03-18-2005, 06:51 PM
IMO this creates more problems.This new FM "upgrade" should be labeled ALPHA and not practiced in common HL flight.

Besides you`re thinking wrong if you think this new FM will be somewhat of a sensation.

Ok,ok....I`d wet me pants if energy high wingloading planes got their treat but it is more of a dream right now.

TAGERT.
03-18-2005, 07:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dali:
As Oleg noted, some people will have difficulties with new FM. This needs a little explanation. New FM is way better than the old one, it is so advanced (even in this stage of testing), that will require a new approach to using your airplane. All their weakneses and strenghts are now much more visible. It will also require more pilot thinking i.e. joystick is now more flying stick as it was before. You will have to thik more about speeds, g-forces, overloads etc.

I'm not in position to tell you details, I just wanted to say - all the testers love new fm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is exciting news! A look into the more complex FM for BoB! I assume your a beta tester.. Knowing that the math for flight simulation has been around for years.. Just what aspects of the old FM math was not fully implemented that is implemented in the new FM? Is it a simple case of replacing what was once a look up table with a real time equation? Or once linearized equations that are now the full polynomial versions? Or were some parts totally disbled and now enabled? Any info would be greatly appreciated! If you dont have any info on the details of the math.. Then just tell us.. What *feels* different now? Oleg implied that the take off and landings are different.. But that says more about the ground model math than the FM during flight.. Anyway.. tell us more! We are all ears!

Stiglr
03-18-2005, 08:19 PM
RichardI babbled:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If the real-life planes were THAT difficult to fly, there would never have been any air battles or bombings. I've read dozens of books written by pilots, talked to real-life present-day pilots, talked to WWII pilots and the planes were not that difficult to fly. Period.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Why did these pilots have to attend 6-month intensive courses with washout rates of over 50%? Why were there more deaths due to accidents in the war than to combat action? All because planes *are* difficult to fly, just for the fact that, unlike a car, if you lose control, chances are you've had it (you know, GRAVITY and IMPACT)?

The many pilots you're referring to in interviews were likely saying that their particular plane was, as planes go, not difficult to fly. That's believable. But it doesn't mean that simple, basic flying is not something you can just walk up and do, like a bad Hollywood movie. It's not simple, any more than how "simple" it is to drive a car the very first time you find yourself behind the wheel. After you learn, sure, it's second nature, but not the very first time you try to drive.

LBR_W.Zellot
03-18-2005, 08:27 PM
Tee hee, great news http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

About A/C not being so hard to fly, lots of WWII footage shows that no hard "snapturns" were made in combat, and never after a dive. In FB this is a common practice...

How Oleg and his team fly this simulator? I bet they don't yank and bank, nor do tight snapturns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
03-18-2005, 09:35 PM
I'm looking forward to this as a new challenge. We've got plenty of guys here who just play the game...we've got plenty of other guys who are really into the history and the mechanics and watching how it was done.

Its true, you don't seem to see lots of snap turns and the like. I think we'll see things change a bit...things will be a little closer to the real thing (as always) and it'll be fun to get into the aircraft again. I think some will be mad because their favorite aircraft now flies a bit differently...but for the true recreationist...its just another step.

It'll be a good challenge to have. I look forward to it.

TacticalYak3
03-18-2005, 10:02 PM
True enough Stiglr. And as the war progressed it became harder and harder to get well-trained pilots in those planes. During BOB Britain was soliciting pilots throughout the Commonwealth and beyond and still didn't have enough (or so they thought http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif).

Often the planes had young men with minimum training and no "refly" button. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

horseback
03-18-2005, 10:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
I wonder if the P-38 will have the zero torque it was always meant to have with these new FMs?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can live with four clicks of left rudder trim-- I want my friggin' elevator authority at speeds over 300kph and the elevator trim to make sense!

cheers

horseback

Stiglr
03-18-2005, 10:35 PM
Overall, I just hope they finally get much closer to just getting it *right*. If that happens, whatever the comparatives are, I can live with it. Just get it right. Earth physics.

TAGERT.
03-18-2005, 11:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Why did these pilots have to attend 6-month intensive courses with washout rates of over 50%? Why were there more deaths due to accidents in the war than to combat action? All because planes *are* difficult to fly, just for the fact that, unlike a car, if you lose control, chances are you've had it (you know, GRAVITY and IMPACT)?

The many pilots you're referring to in interviews were likely saying that their particular plane was, as planes go, not difficult to fly. That's believable. But it doesn't mean that simple, basic flying is not something you can just walk up and do, like a bad Hollywood movie. It's not simple, any more than how "simple" it is to drive a car the very first time you find yourself behind the wheel. After you learn, sure, it's second nature, but not the very first time you try to drive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, good ol Stig.. He couldnt be more wrong if he tried.. Here is a little note from Robert Dorsett on Flight Simulation Theory, What do you really mean by "realism" in a flight simulator?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Robert Dorsett Writes http://www.faqs.org/faqs/aviation/flight-simulators/ :
A third issue is perception, and the intent of the game as an entertainment product. For example, pilots realize that airplanes are essentially very easy to fly and land: non-pilots may expect them to be horrifyingly complex to fly, given a lot of the mystique surrounding aviation, a lot of which has been enthusiastically promoted by pilots themselves. :-) All retail flight simulators are just games, and, to some degree, help shape and feed off the perceptions of their users. So if the users expect an F-16 to be almost impossible to fly, an F-16 simulator that IS almost impossible to fly wouldn't disappoint anyone except real pilots. Conversely, a simulator that is actually easy to fly might disappoint game-players as too easy, or "arcade-ish," because it IS too realistic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stiglr, your the poster boy of a game-player who thinks it is too easy, or "arcade-ish," because it IS too realistic.

gkll
03-18-2005, 11:22 PM
I pop in and out of these forums and online play. So I'm a touch out of date - so be patient....

Whats this new FM? When? Is this some early implementations of BOB style stuff for a pf patch?

If this is the case I will probably fall in love with this game all over. I've never cared much about relative performance (except for the spit he he we all have our weaknesses) but generally have stayed out of one aircraft vs another relative performance...

But what has always been key for me is that first run in the il2demo when I realized how coarse all the previous flightsims had been for the sheer flying part.... il2 just immediately had a reactive feel, a subtle feel to the flying. However years went by and now it seems a bit, easy, too easy. I'm with those who suggest that flying these overweight over powered birds with their intuitive seat of the pants designs, riddled with bugs, was bloody difficult, particularily at the edge and under stress. I bet getting a 6 g turn out of a spit at corner was a subtle thing, comparable to any high performance equipment, whether race car, boat etc. Shuddering wings, torque, buffets constant corrections or you fall off the curve.... not easy at all. So if this is headed our way great.

Now it could be more difficult than RL, because of the limited feedback we get compared (cant be compared) to a real pilot - never mind I'd rather have the plane direct than have it buffered or simplified....

Anyway is this a pf patch thing? BOB connections? If it is BOB then that is 2007 so I'd almost rather not hear about it. If it is pf what is the projected date?

Bearcat99
03-18-2005, 11:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RichardI:
I can't believe all this hype over the flight models. What is this all about? - difficulty? BULL!!!
If the real-life planes were THAT difficult to fly, there would never have been any air battles or bombings. I've read dozens of books written by pilots, talked to real-life present-day pilots, talked to WWII pilots and _the planes were not that difficult to fly._ Period.
I hope the flight models are truly realistic, not difficult for the sake of difficulty. One had to be careful - not fearful.
My 2 cents.
Rich <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll wait untill I actually get the chance to log some hours in the new FMs before I pass judgement. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-18-2005, 11:53 PM
All the FB and PF planes will have New FM?

TAGERT.
03-19-2005, 12:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
All the FB and PF planes will have New FM? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, in that all FB and PF planes have the same FM! Thus there is only one to replace.. It is the parameters that are loaded into the FM that make it a P39 or a ZERO. And FM is like an equation.. ie

f(x) = N*x + 3

Where N is a parameter (coieficent) that describes different planes.. For example plane #1 when N = 2.1, and describes plane #2 when N = 3.87

f(x) = 2.10*x + 3 <-- plane #1
f(x) = 3.87*x + 3 <-- plane #2

So, you see the MATH is the same.. ie the FM is the same.. but the value of N is different. So, I can change the math (new FM) can keep the same values of N for each plane.

i.e.

f(x) = N*x + 3 <-- Old FM
f(x) = N*(x - 2) + 3 <-- New FM

Simple aint it? Same "N" values applied to a sligtly different equation (aka FM). So, now you can see that it is not a big deal to change to a new FM.. Problem is it will more than likly req some tweaking of the paramters as time goes by.. But for the most part, it *should* be that simple. Also note that the new equation requires a bit more processing.. a subtraction and an aditional multiply.. Thus you will need a faster PC to run the new.. more complex FM

mazexx
03-19-2005, 12:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
RichardI babbled:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If the real-life planes were THAT difficult to fly, there would never have been any air battles or bombings. I've read dozens of books written by pilots, talked to real-life present-day pilots, talked to WWII pilots and the planes were not that difficult to fly. Period.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Why did these pilots have to attend 6-month intensive courses with washout rates of over 50%? Why were there more deaths due to accidents in the war than to combat action? All because planes *are* difficult to fly, just for the fact that, unlike a car, if you lose control, chances are you've had it (you know, GRAVITY and IMPACT)?

The many pilots you're referring to in interviews were likely saying that their particular plane was, as planes go, not difficult to fly. That's believable. But it doesn't mean that simple, basic flying is not something you can just walk up and do, like a bad Hollywood movie. It's not simple, any more than how "simple" it is to drive a car the very first time you find yourself behind the wheel. After you learn, sure, it's second nature, but not the very first time you try to drive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree.

My two cents:

I once flew with an old me-109 pilot as his hart failed the medical tests he had to fly "right seat" in his own plane (a Grob). He entered service late 1944 and said that half of his friends (rookies too) died while trying to land the 109. He was terrified every time he was on final approach. By the way, he was in a number of aerial battles but didn't think he ever fired a bullet that hit the target.

The fact that pilots say that their planes where easy to fly is based on hundreds of hours of training in that plane. Very few of us here would survive a landing in a real me 109 (even though it was supposed to be "easy" for experienced pilots). I would sure make a big crater in the ground even though I have 370 hours irl http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

What I think is generally lacking in flight sims is turbulence and the feeling of air flow. In flight sims you lower you flaps, adjust your flight path and speed for final aproach and it goes like on rail without even moving the stick a bit. That is NOT the case irl. The problem is that as you don't feel the small movements (in your behind http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) it would feel very annoying if the planes jerks around "at random".

Still - a flight sim is made to be fun and when I first flew the IL2 demo and landed that 109 on my first try it was fun, even though I know that I most likely would have been a heap of rubble if trying that out irl. Every now and then new planes are introduced and without a glance at the manual we hop into the Corsairs and whatever and take off with full throttle wildy yanking the stick in a low speed 90 degree bank turn back for a perfect landing - with no problems what so ever.

Face it, even Hartmann wouldn't do that...

/mazex

LEXX_Luthor
03-19-2005, 01:22 AM
Thanks Tag... <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
f1(x) = Nx+3 <-- Ye Olde Classic FM
f2(x) = N(x-2)+3 <-- New FM <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif btw...that "x-2" is added before the multiply, so f2 requires only the extra addition (x-2).

Or...he might do something like... Nsin(x)+3 for the New FM instead of ye olde Nx+3, like if the Classic FM used a linear approximation for sin(x) with x fairly small...x approximates sin(x), but x is still large enough so that sin(x) may give noticeably "better" results on teh dogfight servers, at the expense of a tragically expensive AMD/Intel Sine calculation. Something like that. I have no idea what goes into making an FM.

Or, he may be using totally different maths or different methods of simulating the aerodynamics beyond just making the Old FM more "accurate" - Dunno.

jurinko
03-19-2005, 03:03 AM
how come that the ugly boy from the green country ıs stıll a betatester?? lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gryphonne
03-19-2005, 03:50 AM
Will we get a difference in diving speed as well then? :|

Blackdog5555
03-19-2005, 08:29 AM
Well, if you read Olegs post and look at his beta clips, he was working on torque, ground handling and the inertial effects of a planes in flight; or the "moment of inertia" of mass as it deals with "in flight motion" of a planes mass. Very very vey complex stuff. Im sure Tagert is a genius and he will explain how simple programming "moment of inertia" and torque in flight sims is. As if FM Aerodynamics, mass in motion, inertia, moment of inertia, Newtons three laws of physics and the science of gravity on moving object in an atmosphere, thrust, drag coefficients, lift, transonic shock waves, prop theory and efficiency, bla bla bla involves a single simple linear math equation. What a ******. LOL.

Everything is easy when you have been raised in a world of "refly buttons"

p1ngu666
03-19-2005, 09:29 AM
well, probably each plane has a weight, thrust, lift etc
oleg will probably change the environment or global fm, so more torque and stuff, we wont know till we fly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

high power single engined planes will suffer torque more i hope http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

zunzun
03-19-2005, 09:31 AM
Regarding FM I do think that flying an airplane shouldnt be that difficult...... They were, those days, flying by the thousands.
You say that there were a washout of about 50%; Ok, but the reason behind that wasnt that the flying was that dificult or imposible for those 50% that didnt made it. It was that the diferent governments wanted the best for their airplanes.
I think that riding a real ww2 2000hp+ airplane shouldnt be imposible or only for the very best. I think that what is dificult is learning without killing yourself. Irl the diferent armys select the people with best aptitudes to learn. But if you give enough "lifes" (like we have in our computers) to the ordinary guy he/she will learn to ride these monsters, no doubt. Is like learning to ride a bycicle. First times you fall down and hurt your knees but once you get the feeling and "get the trick" everything goes natural.
So, in our computers is also easier because you can repeat as many times (and get 100+ hours FT in about two months) as you want and also you are able to get to know the limits of your plane fearlessly. The "aerial crack" will learn at second time and the ordinary guy will need a few more times.

TAGERT.
03-19-2005, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Thanks Tag... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>NP!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif btw...that "x-2" is added before the multiply, so f2 requires only the extra addition (x-2). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good point, but not the main point I was trying to make.. The point I was trying to make is the New FM is more complex, in that they are enabling/adding aspects of it that were not there before, thus more math to be done, thus a bigger hit on your CPU, Which is what Oleg was refering to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Or...he might do something like... Nsin(x)+3 for the New FM instead of ye olde Nx+3, like if the Classic FM used a linear approximation for sin(x) with x fairly small...x approximates sin(x), but x is still large enough so that sin(x) may give noticeably "better" results on teh dogfight servers, at the expense of a tragically expensive AMD/Intel Sine calculation. Something like that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True, when the angle is small the error is small, but sine functions have been optimised on intel stuff for years now.. and in the old days instead of counting on sine to be small.. or running some function to calc it in real time we would just use a sine look up table.. ie pre calculated.. Prob with that is you typically get alot of round off error, in that you have to limit your lookup table to a certain size.. typical a 8 or 16 bit number.. But that was in the old fix point math processor days.. these days the floating point operations are faster than doing it that old fasion way.. But your sine analogy is a good one to show how sim makers may FUDGE something in the FM to speed things up! And as time goes by, more PC power enables them to use the real deal instead of the FUDGE.. Which is what this new FM is all about imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I have no idea what goes into making an FM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Go here http://www.faqs.org/faqs/aviation/flight-simulators/ and search for 6 DOF

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Or, he may be using totally different maths or different methods of simulating the aerodynamics beyond just making the Old FM more "accurate" - Dunno. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Doubt it.. in that if he did he wouldnt be able to reuse the OLD "N" parameters I alluded to, that would be alot of work.

TAGERT.
03-19-2005, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Well, if you read Olegs post and look at his beta clips, he was working on torque, ground handling and the inertial effects of a planes in flight; or the "moment of inertia" of mass as it deals with "in flight motion" of a planes mass. Very very vey complex stuff. Im sure Tagert is a genius and he will explain how simple programming "moment of inertia" and torque in flight sims is. As if FM Aerodynamics, mass in motion, inertia, moment of inertia, Newtons three laws of physics and the science of gravity on moving object in an atmosphere, thrust, drag coefficients, lift, transonic shock waves, prop theory and efficiency, bla bla bla involves a single simple linear math equation. What a ******. LOL.

Everything is easy when you have been raised in a world of "refly buttons" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! It is easy in that it has been done for years! The math of the FM is no big secret.. the parametes to put into it, that is the hard part.. Implimenting the *math* into code.. and getting it to run with all of the other code (AI, DM, ect) is the ART of it all and where the SMARTS comes in!!! Which is WAY beyond my skill level and I just thank god that Oleg has a team that can pull it off!! So, pick up at least one book on the subjet b4 you open your trap and you wont make such a fool of yourself next time! I provided the linear equation example to show what is ment by more complex FM, i.e. more math to be done, thus a bigger hit on your cpu. To post the real equations here would blow most peopls minds.. And surlly cause you to pass out, or slit your wrists, or run home to mommy! You tard!

ploughman
03-19-2005, 10:51 AM
Everyone's adhering to the no personal attacks protocol expected of posters on these forums I see. How refreshing.

ploughman
03-19-2005, 10:56 AM
Oh, and I'm really looking forward to this new FM. This was unexpected (by me) and has put a properly large smile on my face. I relish the prospect of having to learn to fly again. My pokey little P4 1.5's in for a shock though! I had scheduled a replacement in time for BoB next year (hopefully it'll be out then) but I may have to get my pennies out sooner.

Great stuff.

Latico
03-19-2005, 11:36 AM
In regards to the "washout" rate.

There were several contributing factors that caused high washout rates.

Physical condition of the applicants. Pilots had to be able to withstand the G-forces in fighters and dive bombers. Good eyesight was important, too. And the ability to stay awake during a long flight while enduring the constant drone of the engine. Some applicants might find that they got severely airsick when they finely got to go up in a trainer.

Navigational skills - Some of the applicants may have had flight experience in civilian life, but they could only navigate by staying close to the ground and flying from one landmark to the next. The ability to nav by dead reackoning was a must and part of the training, especially in the PTO. If an applicant couldn't fly over open water without getting lost he was dumped.

Discipline - There was no room for "hot doggers" and "barn stormers" in the military. Anyone that couldn't confine himself to flying as part of a team or had a high incidence of not adhereing to orders by flight leaders were definitely not needed.

Mental conditioning - Pilots had to be able to solve problems quickly when they arose. those that were too slow to make decisions or froze up during testing were rejected.

So you see, it wasn't all about being able to take off and land a plane.

Stiglr
03-19-2005, 11:48 AM
True enough, Latico, but there were ample examples of crashes on takeoff and landing, among trainees AND full-fledged pilots... not to mention involving specific "twitchy" plane types... that illustrate the point that flying is not something "you just walk up and do intuitively".

heywooood
03-19-2005, 12:13 PM
so will new FM's taste better without 'FUDGE' ?

yes, tastes better...but less filling..insofar as your virtual sky will be less filled with planes and your virtual battlefields below will be less filled with armour or ships as long as you have the BoB FM's enabled in FB/PF.

p1ngu666
03-19-2005, 12:14 PM
depends on the plane
but something like a spitfire, that was easy and a joy to fly, so was lanc and mossie. the later heavier, more powerful ones could bite u for sure.

in a book, some guy takes a typhoon up for first time, and he trims it before take off like he was told...
plane swings massivly, he OH so nearly hits a buliding. he had swung the trim the wrong way http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

on a hurri it wouldnt have been so bad, but it had half the power, and weight too, probably.

gkll
03-19-2005, 01:02 PM
I think most people, with a bit of instruction, could get into a racecar, and drive it around the track (cheers for our hero €" look at him go!). Just as most people, with some instruction and a bit of practice, could probably fly a spit (this is easy, pull the stick slightly plane pulls up€¦ whats the problem?). However to get the maximum performance out of the racecar, or the spit, to hammer that machine right out to the edge of the envelope, that is what is difficult. I know what I€m talking about when it comes to racecars in RL... some guy might have 15 years 'driving' and be useless, totally useless, in getting a decent lap time out of a stockcar.

Now planes aren€t the same, of course not, however before computers and modern jet fighters all that nuance and subtlety of control was up to the pilot... and guys like Chuck Yeager made a career out of getting a little more out of their aircraft than anyone else. They found that part of the envelope that could be <stretched> a little, and they used superior pilot skills to exploit this... not tactics, sheer flying... of course they used superior tactics too...

The debate always comes when people start haggling over €˜realism€. Because we can€t have the real feedback that a pilot gets we are always faced with a tradeoff between a €˜fully realistic FM€ which is €˜unrealistically difficult€ or vice versa €" €˜unrealistic FM€ which is €˜realistically difficult€. On this I have always voted for the first... however when it comes to viewing I go the opposite way, so that I like €˜realistic view difficulty€ (icons and padlock) vs €˜fully realistic unrealistic view difficulty (no icons or padlock)....

However that is because I am far more interested in flying, than straining my eyeballs with €˜FR€ view settings€¦. Just my preference.

Anyhow I am still curious €" it seems we are getting some BOB style FM enhancements in the next pf patch? Could anyone confirm? And the date of said patch?

S!

TAGERT.
03-19-2005, 01:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
In regards to the "washout" rate.

There were several contributing factors that caused high washout rates.

Physical condition of the applicants. Pilots had to be able to withstand the G-forces in fighters and dive bombers. Good eyesight was important, too. And the ability to stay awake during a long flight while enduring the constant drone of the engine. Some applicants might find that they got severely airsick when they finely got to go up in a trainer.

Navigational skills - Some of the applicants may have had flight experience in civilian life, but they could only navigate by staying close to the ground and flying from one landmark to the next. The ability to nav by dead reackoning was a must and part of the training, especially in the PTO. If an applicant couldn't fly over open water without getting lost he was dumped.

Discipline - There was no room for "hot doggers" and "barn stormers" in the military. Anyone that couldn't confine himself to flying as part of a team or had a high incidence of not adhereing to orders by flight leaders were definitely not needed.

Mental conditioning - Pilots had to be able to solve problems quickly when they arose. those that were too slow to make decisions or froze up during testing were rejected.

So you see, it wasn't all about being able to take off and land a plane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exctally! Another thing Stig miss-represented was the notion that half were lost due to "accidents in the war than combat" it implys they died trying to take off and land.. Which is very missleading.. but helps his argument, which is why Im sure he did not go into detail on the definition of accidents.. The accidents were due to weather.. It was stated that half of the deaths.. for the US pilots flying 8+ hours to the fight.. Was due to the weather! Not landing or taking off or flying in general.. No, basiclly flying in the soup they call clouds in and around the UK is hard to fly in.. espically back in those days without GPS and such. But, like I said, Stig wouldnt go into that much detail, becuse it would not further his argument that flying is hard. As for training.. Everyhing requires some training.. but the point is after that it is not hard. Even a 15 year old kid behind the seat of a car for the first time need a little training.. But after that.. it aint hard anymore.

zunzun
03-19-2005, 01:51 PM
Exactly! flying is not that hard to learn. The problem is the price you pay for the mistakes you do learning.
We do not have that problem (for example, I "killed" myself many times trying to land on CV. In the end I learned how to do it despite I did it on my own without the help of any instructor).

gkll
03-19-2005, 01:56 PM
Tagert. said "Even a 15 year old kid behind the seat of a car for the first time need a little training.. But after that.. it aint hard anymore."

Couldn't resist - now lets pop that 15 year old newbie into a racecar, drop the flag, and tell him to keep up.... ain't gonna happen, no way never. I bet planes are easier than racecars, but (broken record I know) hustling an overweight, torque prone, over powered, bug filled, 1930's high performance aircraft right out to the edge of what the plane can do (for low speed flight, high speed, maximum turn rate etc etc)was not 'easy' in any way. Flying it point A to B, maybe not so bad. Context counts.

Stiglr
03-19-2005, 02:09 PM
Obviously context counts. But Tagert and his cohorts like to qualify all those important things like "there IS bad weather" and "you DO only get one chance to screw up a landing", as if they're modeling factors you can just click away in your game settings. Not in real life.

It is true that flying probably isn't that hard to get the hang of, with proper training (and they require how many HUNDREDS of hours to get a license??)... but flight is also so unforgiving that you can't just cavalierly decide you're gonna be a pilot and just "pick up a plane at Walmart" and master it in an afternoon.

TAGERT.
03-19-2005, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gkll:
Couldn't resist - now lets pop that 15 year old newbie into a racecar, drop the flag, and tell him to keep up.... ain't gonna happen, no way never. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dont confuse experance and raw tallent with it being hard or not. The inability to keep up does not mean that keeping back is hard.. it just means the guys in the lead have more experance with racing and thier cars. With time, the kid will be able to keep up.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gkll:
I bet planes are easier than racecars, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont know.. sure, drafting and such on the NASCAR circuit is surly nerve racking.. but Im sure that flying a B17 in formation was too.. Or attacking a B17 formation while tracers wiz by is surly nerve racking.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gkll:
but (broken record I know) hustling an overweight, torque prone, over powered, bug filled, 1930's high performance aircraft right out to the edge of what the plane can do (for low speed flight, high speed, maximum turn rate etc etc) was not 'easy' in any way. Flying it point A to B, maybe not so bad. Context counts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed, but not keeping up does not mean that driving a race is hard.. it just means you aint as good at it as the guys in the lead.

TAGERT.
03-19-2005, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Obviously context counts. But Tagert and his cohorts like to qualify all those important things like "there IS bad weather" and "you DO only get one chance to screw up a landing", as if they're modeling factors you can just click away in your game settings. Not in real life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Never said you could. Simply pointed out the fact that they taught 1000s of kids to do it in WWII. Nothing really that special/different between the guys in the air and the guys on the ground physically or mentally. That is they put their pants on one leg at a time too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
It is true that flying probably isn't that hard to get the hang of, with proper training <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your welcome! Glad I could help! Nice to see you do a 180 and agree with us now.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
(and they require how many HUNDREDS of hours to get a license??)... but flight is also so unforgiving that you can't just cavalierly decide you're gonna be a pilot and just "pick up a plane at Walmart" and master it in an afternoon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Any tard with enough money and time on his hands can get a pilots license.. Physically they don't have to be much more fit than a guy getting a drivers license! So, flying is not hard. Combat is hard.. be it on the ground or in the air.. Split second decisions and good physical condition is required.. Thing is the gov does not want to waste and expensive aircraft on a guy who *freezes* up under pressure, thus the months of training to weed them out. And training is relative to the equipment your dealing with.. A plane is more complex than a riffle.. Thus I would expect pilot training to last longer.. For example, my training at Ft. Gordon was 10 months.. Just to fix coms equipment.. I was in the Army for a year before I got to my first unit.. 2 months to shoot, move, and communicate.. 10 months to fix electronics.. After training fixing electronics was not hard.

Wolf-Strike
03-19-2005, 04:17 PM
Guys,a Cessna is a dream to fly and can land safely even with engine failure.

Now the thing with these WW2 planes is they were made in an era when planes and wings and lift and AOA and the like were not fuly understood so you delt with an engineers """genius""" and his understanding of flight as good OR bad as it was.MEANING THAT YOU DIDNT KNOW WHAT WAS COMING NEXT!!!

With that said,you have to understand that anyone can most likely land say an ensign eliminator,but how many times would it take to ingrain this into ones head is a question that comes up.

Coming into an aircraft carrier at say 100mph and your head is spinning and yet your still aimed at that mark you mentally put on the carriers landing deck.Now you feel calm and check airpseed and it matches what your flight instructer said was correct for this AOA and distance to land spot.Then something goes wrong and you feel that your sinking too quick........Heart rate jumps from 175 to 220 and adrenaline pours in causing unrationale thoughts...............what do you do..............@$%#! what do you do???!?!?!?!?

You increase throttle for a run around and @$@%...your still sinking too fast....so you increase throttle more and VOILA your engineers wish at a good stable platform was?!?!?!?! WAY OFF????????.....wing dips and you slam into the deck.Nuff said...ensign eliminator has eliminated another one.

Your diving down to the deck chasing a 109 in your brand new american engineered Airacobra and your opponent pulls hard into a turn.You follow and VOILA Spin city at 100 feet off the deck and you are toast.Your squad mate makes it back alive and tells of your misfortunes to his superiors.They test the plane at very high altitude and find that the wing design puts plane into a very hard to recover from flat spin.So they try to engineer this out in the new revisions.

Or say your coming in for a landing in a 109 and with its small wings you feel like your dropping out of the sky.So what do you do.....you abort and come around again.This time you come in a little quicker and the plane is still shudering and you abort......try again and this time you feel like your way too fast and your gonna over shoot........so you cut throttle and as speed drops so does your little wing plane and you slam down onto runway crushing the notoriously weak landing gear and your toast.

Your taking off in a P47 and even though you were warned that the Juggernaut has tremendous cohones and not to full throttle it .....the end of the runway is rapidly approaching....%@(^....what do you do....check airspeed and youll never make it so you gun it and VOILA....

TAGERT.
03-19-2005, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
Guys,a Cessna is a dream to fly and can land safely even with engine failure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would think that any flight that resulted in engine failure would fall into the dream catagory of nightmare! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But, given a choice, I would choose a cessna over a F104 to land dead stick. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
Now the thing with these WW2 planes is they were made in an era when planes and wings and lift and AOA and the like were not fuly understood so you delt with an engineers """genius""" and his understanding of flight as good OR bad as it was.MEANING THAT YOU DIDNT KNOW WHAT WAS COMING NEXT!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think we would be suprised at just how well they *fully* understood back than, and how little they *fully* understand it today! Simulation tools make things much easier to do and try things these days.. But the engineering aspect.. It is amazing what thouse guys did IN THIER HEADS vs. what we relly on a PC to do for us today.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
With that said,you have to understand that anyone can most likely land say an ensign eliminator,but how many times would it take to ingrain this into ones head is a question that comes up.

Coming into an aircraft carrier at say 100mph and your head is spinning and yet your still aimed at that mark you mentally put on the carriers landing deck.Now you feel calm and check airpseed and it matches what your flight instructer said was correct for this AOA and distance to land spot.Then something goes wrong and you feel that your sinking too quick........Heart rate jumps from 175 to 220 and adrenaline pours in causing unrationale thoughts...............what do you do..............@$%#! what do you do???!?!?!?!?

You increase throttle for a run around and @$@%...your still sinking too fast....so you increase throttle more and VOILA your engineers wish at a good stable platform was?!?!?!?! WAY OFF????????.....wing dips and you slam into the deck.Nuff said...ensign eliminator has eliminated another one.

Your diving down to the deck chasing a 109 in your brand new american engineered Airacobra and your opponent pulls hard into a turn.You follow and VOILA Spin city at 100 feet off the deck and you are toast.Your squad mate makes it back alive and tells of your misfortunes to his superiors.They test the plane at very high altitude and find that the wing design puts plane into a very hard to recover from flat spin.So they try to engineer this out in the new revisions.

Or say your coming in for a landing in a 109 and with its small wings you feel like your dropping out of the sky.So what do you do.....you abort and come around again.This time you come in a little quicker and the plane is still shudering and you abort......try again and this time you feel like your way too fast and your gonna over shoot........so you cut throttle and as speed drops so does your little wing plane and you slam down onto runway crushing the notoriously weak landing gear and your toast.

Your taking off in a P47 and even though you were warned that the Juggernaut has tremendous cohones and not to full throttle it .....the end of the runway is rapidly approaching....%@(^....what do you do....check airspeed and youll never make it so you gun it and VOILA.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup.. All good examples of how it is better to have experance with your ride before you head for the edge of the envlope.. Something they hardly ever got in training and mostly on the job.. If you lived, you learned.. if you didnt.. you stopped learing. It was just that simple back than.. Now days with simulators.. they can learn more from making mistakes than they did back than. As with the analogy of the pro nascar driver vs. the kid who just got his licenes.. Experance makes you a better pilot/driver. But does not mean that driving or flying is hard.

Wolf-Strike
03-19-2005, 05:28 PM
All I want from Maddox,are you hearing me Oleg???...Hehe just kidding http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I have to laugh at the race car example.Take when montoya and Gordan switched cars and ran some laps at daytona a few years ago.What happened.Well Jeff Gordan came some 2.5 seconds close to Montoyas qualifying time.Now you have to understand that these cars are known to be very easy to drive.Take the new driver Weber and his statement"these F1 cars are unbelievably easy to drive when he first entered F1.

Now lets see what happens when Weber trys to push it further and up his game.As Sylvester said when filming Driven....the cars feel like your driving on ice when you push to its limit and then said he doesnt understand how these guys get the times they do.Now give him years of practice and maybe he will match their times or maybe he will be 2.5 seconds off the mark???

Micheal Schumacher wouild not be the highest paid atlete in the world if he didnt have a very unique ability.

If you havent yet download the GTP mod for N2003.This mod feels so dam real and hence it feels easy.As Oleg stated and as the developer of N2003 stated....the more real these simulations get the easier they will be to drive/fly.

Yet I race and race and cant seem to shave 1/8's of seconds yet people are way faster that me.Yet every once in awhile something clicks in my mind and all of a sudden I am powering out of turns and shooting past opponents on the straights.What am I doing different I dont know....but Ill tell you this much when it clicks ,I KNOW Im gonna be faster exiting than the racer in front of mehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)Maybe just knowing??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gifOr maybe these guys ARE extremely talented http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

WWSensei
03-19-2005, 05:28 PM
The aspects of flying that make parts of it hard and wash out a lot of pilots has nothing to do with the flight model.

Some of it has to do with learning the complexities of certain aircraft ie, watching your manifold pressure, oil temp etc.

A lot of it has to do with the mundane, mind numbing stuff like pre-flights and various checklists.

How many vpilots turn off CEM because they find it too much to track? Considering the "complex" engine management in the game to real life engine management is like pushing a toy car and going "vroom, vroom" and racing in the Indy 500. If they can't handle the pre-school level CEM in this game I don't hold out much hope for them getting in the real world.

There is a lot more to flying than just being in the air and it is that side of the equation that washes out a lot of would-be pilots.

TAGERT.
03-19-2005, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWSensei:
The aspects of flying that make parts of it hard and wash out a lot of pilots has nothing to do with the flight model.

Some of it has to do with learning the complexities of certain aircraft ie, watching your manifold pressure, oil temp etc.

A lot of it has to do with the mundane, mind numbing stuff like pre-flights and various checklists.

How many vpilots turn off CEM because they find it too much to track? Considering the "complex" engine management in the game to real life engine management is like pushing a toy car and going "vroom, vroom" and racing in the Indy 500. If they can't handle the pre-school level CEM in this game I don't hold out much hope for them getting in the real world.

There is a lot more to flying than just being in the air and it is that side of the equation that washes out a lot of would-be pilots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That may be true for the wash out phase.. Some guys can not chew bubble gum and walk.. But, guys like that would have trouble driving a tractor in a straight line too.. So, assuming you have someone that meets the min req.. They can than learn to fly via training.. at which point it aint hard anymore and all that *managment* stuff becomes a reflex really.. You do it without giving it much thought at all.. Now in battle.. that reflex can get missed sometimes because it moves down the list of important things to do when bullets are flying by your plane. That does not mean that flying is hard.. That is just the definitioin between a good and great pilot.. Same is true for ground troups.. Being able to keep your head under pressue is the key to winning a fight.. Some can do it.. Some cant.. I can still remember boot camp at Fort Jackson.. They had this simulated battle field.. wow.. that is still burned in my memory.. I knew it was fake.. But it sure felt real.. Now shooting aint hard.. But shooting in battle can be a bit nerve racking sometimes.. But it aint hard.

Stanger_361st
03-19-2005, 06:10 PM
If the new FM is going to be difficult to land or takeoff can we have training wheels put on the planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Hunter82
03-19-2005, 06:45 PM
You betcha....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dali:
As Oleg noted, some people will have difficulties with new FM. This needs a little explanation. New FM is way better than the old one, it is so advanced (even in this stage of testing), that will require a new approach to using your airplane. All their weakneses and strenghts are now much more visible. It will also require more pilot thinking i.e. joystick is now more flying stick as it was before. You will have to thik more about speeds, g-forces, overloads etc.

I'm not in position to tell you details, I just wanted to say - all the testers love new fm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WWMaxGunz
03-19-2005, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
It is true that flying probably isn't that hard to get the hang of, with proper training (and they require how many HUNDREDS of hours to get a license??)... but flight is also so unforgiving that you can't just cavalierly decide you're gonna be a pilot and just "pick up a plane at Walmart" and master it in an afternoon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know I am missing something when I read that, something not said.
For a pilots license you go through ground school and then spend some hours with an instructor
and finally solo and get your ticket. I think there are people who have done that in around
10 hours flying time total, certainly if it takes 100 air hours then you are extremely cautious
or just not learning or maybe your instructor has some big bills to pay and no other students.

What do you get for that? You are a beginner at that point and you keep learning while taking
absolutely zero risks if you are smart and even then you probably get surprises now and then.
The plane you fly is General Aviation and most likely very, very tame compared to WWII fighters.
You know GA? Those planes with the placards saying not to fly upside down and No Aerobatics
by law? Almost anyone can fly them right until something goes wrong and then you only have a
reset equivalent if it's not too wrong and you have someone else with you who knows what to do.

You want to fly something else much different, or even fly by instruments, you go "back to
school" and get checked out on the new plane or get the extra endorsement on your license.
Sorta like getting MC or CDL on your ground vehicle permit only a lot more work.

Or do you mean Combat Fighter Pilot, Stig? I don't think that late war German rookies had the
luxury of 100's of hours before being sent into action. US pilots I remember something about
150 hours but is that in the type they will be flying or is that total including trainers?

For those guys, they fly well enough till something or a situation goes wrong and then they
are in school with a really bad penalty for flunking.

Not hard to fly at all if what you do is either simple or not much more than what you know.

And I wouldn't put it past anything if someone actually did, after passing Ground School just
go through flying with the instructor and solo on the same day. You just wouldn't catch me
being passenger to one of those anytime even a year later.

Other things to flunk out a fighter pilot... I think I learned from Sensei... not aggressive
enough, not willing to fight to stay the course.

mazexx
03-19-2005, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
Guys,a Cessna is a dream to fly and can land safely even with engine failure.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The only WWII era plane I've flown IRL is the Tiger Moth and even though it was a trainer for the Spitfire pilots I don't think that any one here with thousands of hours of "virtual flying time" and no experience IRL could take it up for a spin around the field solo and return back with no physical or mental damage...

This DOES NOT imply that flying a Moth is hard! Most of the sim pilots here would probably be able to fly solo relatively safely in a Moth after 10-20 hours or so of training. The thing we are saying is that flying a real plane IS very different from flying a sim (even the best one which IL2 is).

I've been flying with a lot of sim pilots with many hours of virtual stick time and just as the rest of us trying it for the first time they have a hard time keeping a PA-28 flying level at constant speed in a straight course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif This is naturally NOT something only a few percent of the population can do, but your IL2 hours does very little to help you do it unfortunately...

My ex girlfriend could actually make clean turns faster than an old Falcon 4 buddy with thousands of hours in sims. And **** - he's an ace in the virual skies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

/Mazex

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-19-2005, 11:16 PM
Man I never new we had so many real life combat pilots in here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

WTE_Gog
03-20-2005, 12:04 AM
On the subject of difficulty, I would have to agree. I have sat in many cockpits over the years, from slow piston engined aircraft to fast jets.....and they aint hard to fly.(if I had the cash, I'd do it myself)

The same can be seen with Formula 1 racing sims. I have seen real F1 drivers try these things out and crash in the first 100 metres and say 'It's not like this at all, it's way easier in RL'.

Hristos
03-20-2005, 12:37 AM
So, to things straight - new FM is expected in the upcoming patch ?

FA_Whisky
03-20-2005, 06:01 AM
Man, will the P51 finally be a true energy fighter....... fast high speed turns with loads of energy when you come out of the turn. True zoom climb.........
Can't wait!!!
If this FM is really true, it will set a real gab between ace and novice virtual pilots.

CHDT
03-20-2005, 06:08 AM
"Exactly! flying is not that hard to learn."


BS.

I've seen many times military pilots with lot of flighthours in jets having difficulites in transitioning to propeller aircrafts with strong torque like Porter or C-3505.

Recon_609IAP
03-20-2005, 06:21 AM
how about we not argue the debate of how easy/hard it is to fly in this thread?

Sure is a pain learning about details of the new FM when every other post is about debating the difficulties of flight.

Easy or hard - I'm not concerned - how my aircraft performs when I'm in a loop fight, or in a dive - that is what I care about http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think I'm most curious about p38. However, I would suspect that Tagert nailed one thing on th e head: I would think this is a "global FM change" with perhaps some tweaking to a few individual aircraft.

BSS_CUDA
03-20-2005, 07:39 AM
I am stoked about the new FM, lookin for my 38 to fly like it should, but everyone get ready for whinefest 2005, you are going to hear more pissing and moaning than you ever did before, everyone's favorite ride is gonna get porked, the first time a 109 or a spit whatever goes into a snap spin during a DF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif your gonna hear it. first time a 190 or a 109 cant hit its emergency brakes and do its 180 snap turn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif first time I get my *** shot down buy a lufty http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif its gonna happen, still it will bring new life to the game and I'm really pumped about it

Sig.Hirsch
03-20-2005, 08:29 AM
Thank you Dali for informing us , that's a very good news ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I 'm eager to have a try at it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
regards ,

TAGERT.
03-20-2005, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FA_Whisky:
Man, will the P51 finally be a true energy fighter....... fast high speed turns with loads of energy when you come out of the turn. True zoom climb.........
Can't wait!!!
If this FM is really true, it will set a real gab between ace and novice virtual pilots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think we will see major changes in things like top speed, roll rate, climb rates, etc. A more complex FM does not effect those things. A more complex FM simply means better fidelity. Fidelity in a flight simulator comes from the flight equations used in the FM. Generally, the more complex the FM, the better performance you are going to get. However, the flight equations (equations of motion) do not make the fight model, they simply set the *limits* on what is and is not possible. In order for the FM to do a good job of simulating the plane, you need to have good parameters (lift-curve slope, drag coefficients, stability derivatives, etc..). In addition, you have to decide if you want the flight equations (FM) to calculate your lift on each wing independently, or just the lift on the whole wing surface area. The latter method is easier for the PC, less calculations required, but the former would allow you to model such flight dynamics as the "Dutch Roll" modes, stall-spin conditions, and other common effects. So, you have to have good parameters per aircraft, so that plane flies just as realistically as the flight models does. That is to say you could have the best FM in the world, equation wise, but if your parameters are wrong the planes wont fly right.

So, when Oleg said he is giving us a new FM, he means he has added/enabled some more of the flight equations. Like that lift per wing or whole surface area thing I mentioned above.. What Oleg didn't say is they went back and re-calculated all 100+ aircraft parameters (lift-curves slopes, drag coefficients, stability derivatives, etc.) That would be a major effort and cost! Which is a guess on my part, but, probally a good one. Im sure some will get tweaked, but there just isnte enough time and money to redo them all from scrathc imho! But, Oleg is god like, so if anyone could pull it off, it would be him!

So, what we can expect is better fidelity.. But I wouldn't expect planes to be that much different with regards to top speeds, roll rate, climb rates, etc.. In that the same parameters are being used in the new FM.

But, I dont know if the old FM calculated the lift per wing, or just did the whole wing area (both wings). But, assuming that is something he is adding/enabling we might see planes like the P38 have a more true to life STALL charteristics due to the better fidelity of the new FM. But that is just a guess on my part, in that I dont know what Oleg has enabled or disable in the old or new FM.

quiet_man
03-20-2005, 10:57 AM
hmm, Oleg finally changes the joystick modelling

don't think because of my e-mail, as I never got an answer, but I think Oleg knows by himself the backdraws of current input modell

looking forward to the new stuff

quiet_man

Aaron_GT
03-20-2005, 12:16 PM
"Agree The only WWII era plane I've flown IRL is the Tiger Moth and even though it was a trainer for the Spitfire pilots I don't think that any one here with thousands of hours of "virtual flying time" and no experience IRL could take it up for a spin around the field solo and return back with no physical or mental damage..."


On a UK TV programme they took a person who had only flown general aviation sims and put him in a plane and got him to fly it. He could, apart from slightly fluffing the landing (the instructor took over at the last moment). The former sim-only pilot said that the experience of flying a real plane was very different. The instructor said he was very good.

No conclusions there, just an observation.

dali
03-20-2005, 01:11 PM
maybe I was not clear enough - it is not the question either WWII airplanes were difficlult to master or not. I'm not in position to judge that, I've flown many planes but unfortunately no warbirds. What I wanted to say is - new FM demands new approach to using the joystick and thinking about energy in flight. I'm not saying it is going to be more difficult or easier than before. As I said, I don't want to discuss details, that's Oleg's field. I just wanted to clear what he ment in his post. But to clear the air a bit - I've read first impressions of new FM by one of the P-51 pilots (the real one) and he is happy with the new model
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Airmail109
03-20-2005, 01:15 PM
FM Whiners........SHUT THE **** UP! Thankyou!

TAGERT.
03-20-2005, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dali:
maybe I was not clear enough - it is not the question either WWII airplanes were difficlult to master or not. I'm not in position to judge that, I've flown many planes but unfortunately no warbirds. What I wanted to say is - new FM demands new approach to using the joystick and thinking about energy in flight. I'm not saying it is going to be more difficult or easier than before. As I said, I don't want to discuss details, that's Oleg's field. I just wanted to clear what he ment in his post. But to clear the air a bit - I've read first impressions of new FM by one of the P-51 pilots (the real one) and he is happy with the new model
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As long at the so called "real" P51 pilot is not Richard Ordway that is good news! In that Ordway never flew a *real* P-51.

Wolf-Strike
03-20-2005, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dali:
maybe I was not clear enough - it is not the question either WWII airplanes were difficlult to master or not. I'm not in position to judge that, I've flown many planes but unfortunately no warbirds. What I wanted to say is - new FM demands new approach to using the joystick and thinking about energy in flight. I'm not saying it is going to be more difficult or easier than before. As I said, I don't want to discuss details, that's Oleg's field. I just wanted to clear what he ment in his post. But to clear the air a bit - I've read first impressions of new FM by one of the P-51 pilots (the real one) and he is happy with the new model
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dali,thanks for the little hints as I know that Oleg probably wants everyone tightly shut for now.Just wanted to know if the P51 pilot mentioned anything about the P51's notoriously unstable center of balance with full fuel load.Or is this something to wait for in BOB??

Codex1971
03-20-2005, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FA_Whisky:
Man, will the P51 finally be a true energy fighter....... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It never was one was it?

reisen52
03-20-2005, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
As long at the so called "real" P51 pilot is not Richard Ordway that is good news! In that Ordway never flew a *real* P-51. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is Richard Ordway does he post here?

Zeke

p1ngu666
03-20-2005, 03:54 PM
easy todo, hard to master

ww1 pilots where sent to the front with 11 hours, sometimes less on type...
ww1 aircraft, the engine often spun with the properler, so u got mad gryo and torque effects...

i could drive a f1 car, but, not to the limit, because i would kill myself, im so unfit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

they can pull 5g in modern F1 cars http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

RxMan
03-20-2005, 05:51 PM
Who is Richard Ordway?
Bite your tongue knave..

HayateAce
03-20-2005, 06:53 PM
Hey, does this mean that when I pass, say a Zero at 500kph (him going downhill, me going up) that he won't be able to do a 180 turn, and begin closing the gap going straight up?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LLv34_Stafroty
03-20-2005, 07:00 PM
hayate, no, cos u suck.

TAGERT.
03-20-2005, 07:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:
hayate, no, cos u suck. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well looks like Stafroty got up on the wrong side of the bed?

Recon_609IAP
03-20-2005, 07:20 PM
"Hey, does this mean that when I pass, say a Zero at 500kph (him going downhill, me going up) that he won't be able to do a 180 turn, and begin closing the gap going straight up?"


lol

Stiglr
03-20-2005, 07:26 PM
A very apropos question.

WWMaxGunz
03-20-2005, 07:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by quiet_man:
hmm, Oleg finally changes the joystick modelling
....
quiet_man <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did you get that? I don't remember seeing it in Olegs' post.
All Dali wrote was you will have to use the stick differently which don't 1:1 that to me
so I'm wondering where Oleg put out about a change in the stick interface.

TAGERT.
03-20-2005, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
A _very_ apropos question. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Questions (aka talk) is cheap.. Got Track?

Badsight.
03-20-2005, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
**some load of bollox**
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

that doesnt happen now , unless your ******ed , mentally or otherwise , or dont know how air combat manouvers work

& you sound like your speaking from experience up there so ill take my pick of both guesses in equal proportions

TAGERT.
03-20-2005, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
that doesnt happen now , unless your ******ed , mentally or otherwise , or dont know how air combat manouvers work & you sound like your speaking from experience up there so ill take my pick of both guesses in equal proportions <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To be honest.. I have never seen anything like that either.. I mean the zero can loop like a mo fo.. but I half expected that imho.. But if I pass by a zero in a head on pass.. and I got speed.. zero cant touch me! As a mater of fact, I enjoy the heck out of using early P40 tatics on the zero.. they work great! Stay fast and roll and that zero can not touch you.. And you can pick your fights too!

Oleg_Maddox
03-20-2005, 11:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
I wonder if the P-38 will have the zero torque it was always meant to have with these new FMs?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zero torgue if similar RPM on P-38s is present in any versions of AEP-PF.... Plerase check yourself and don't repeat others.
For this is enough to look how the plane start on the runway, taxinig and at the take off and don't have any such effects like many others.. This just one test that to look it, however there is possible to see it in many other tests and compare with others.
Just due to this fact already - the _torgue zero_ effect has no changes in new FM for P-38...

That to get more torgue effect of separately working engines (say one switched off) of two or more engines planes more precise that now or in new FM you will need to wait BoB, because not all things of the new code is possible to include in the old code..

robban75
03-20-2005, 11:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

On a UK TV programme they took a person who had only flown general aviation sims and put him in a plane and got him to fly it. He could, apart from slightly fluffing the landing (the instructor took over at the last moment). The former sim-only pilot said that the experience of flying a real plane was very different. The instructor said he was very good.

No conclusions there, just an observation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone that can ride a bike can fly a plane, under normal conditions. But, when you fly the plane to the limit, such as landings, banked stalls, power on stalls, spins and so on, no PC pilot will do very well. And that is in a
Cessna.
To sum it up, normal flying is easy, but flying to the limit is a totally different ball game.

Ugly_Kid
03-20-2005, 11:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

Zero torgue if similar RPM on P-38s is present in any versions of AEP-PF.... Plerase check yourself and don't repeat others.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe they talk about stalling (however, most of the time they really repeat what some other made them talk) where every aircraft drops a wing and finally goes to a spin - even if you don't apply rudders. P-38 should probably stall more or less straight as almost any ac with engine on idle. Does new FM feature straight stalls?

Oleg_Maddox
03-20-2005, 11:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dali:
maybe I was not clear enough - it is not the question either WWII airplanes were difficlult to master or not. I'm not in position to judge that, I've flown many planes but unfortunately no warbirds. What I wanted to say is - new FM demands new approach to using the joystick and thinking about energy in flight. I'm not saying it is going to be more difficult or easier than before. As I said, I don't want to discuss details, that's Oleg's field. I just wanted to clear what he ment in his post. But to clear the air a bit - I've read first impressions of new FM by one of the P-51 pilots (the real one) and he is happy with the new model
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dali,thanks for the little hints as I know that Oleg probably wants everyone tightly shut for now.Just wanted to know if the P51 pilot mentioned anything about the P51's notoriously unstable center of balance with full fuel load.Or is this something to wait for in BOB?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We model only simultaniosly and proportional use of the fuel from all fuel tanks in the current model (and it's not related FM functions really). Switches and other methiods we plan to model in the future sims.

Oleg_Maddox
03-21-2005, 12:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

Zero torgue if similar RPM on P-38s is present in any versions of AEP-PF.... Plerase check yourself and don't repeat others.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe they talk about stalling (however, most of the time they really repeat what some other made them talk) where every aircraft drops a wing and finally goes to a spin - even if you don't apply rudders. P-38 should probably stall more or less straight as almost any ac with engine on idle. Does new FM feature straight stalls? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-38 has better than any other 2 engine aircraft stall charactersitics, better than FW or even better or similar to Bf109... but it doesn't means that it will not go in a spin. Just for the sample for you - gliges (without engine) also go in a spin....Isn't it??
And it doesn't means also that P-38 would be better than any aircraft of WWII on stall. This would be totally wrong... Real comparison in trials one VS other (not in recals of pilots, but in special experiments that was done for evaluations of aircraft in WWII time) show that real picture is way different than tell some of the pilots.

Ugly_Kid
03-21-2005, 12:15 AM
A real aircraft seldom goes into a spin with elevator only...Furthermore, aircraft are usually constructud not to tip stall - geometric twist or leading edge slats like in La-5 or Bf-109, yet FB doesn't feature a straight stall . Are there changes in stall routines?

I think P-38 is great BTW, but if people don't mean tip stalling with their torque compaints then I also really don't know what they are talking about.

TheGozr
03-21-2005, 12:16 AM
Oleg what ever you do make shure you model the yak9U correctly with his fool power and potentiels http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It is the Russian flagship.

Oleg_Maddox
03-21-2005, 01:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
Oleg what ever you do make shure you model the yak9U correctly with his fool power and potentiels http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It is the Russian flagship. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunatelly, there was special order to do not use VK-107 on full power on the first serial aircraft that come on the front due to problems with the old VISH propeller reductor oil leak. However some pilots ignored it and flew on full power some time and the speeds they were achived even higher than technical data. But the problem with reductor was solved just in the last couple of months of the war and serial production Yak-9U (with other airintake also) was coming in Germany _probably_ after May 9.

I don't think we would make special versions Yak-9U of some pilots that ignored order and flew on full power...

So, we model these planes that were there really.

TAGERT.
03-21-2005, 01:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Anyone that can ride a bike can fly a plane, under normal conditions. But, when you fly the plane to the limit, such as landings, banked stalls, power on stalls, spins and so on, no PC pilot will do very well. And that is in a Cessna. To sum it up, normal flying is easy, but flying to the limit is a totally different ball game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Totally different.. But not totally hard once you have the training.. Most civilian pilots dont do advanced manuvers, but, once they are trained to do them.. they wouldnt be any harder imho.. Granted the phyical toll on the body is more demanding.. And most sim pilots like along comerical and civilan would not do very well.. That too takes training.. But hard? I dont think so.

Hristos
03-21-2005, 01:34 AM
It is always nice to hear from the developer himself, much different than most other games.

We Fw 190 types have all the toys we ever wanted, except 3 minor things:

1. MG151/20 with MG shells

2. too big speed penalty even when wings are slightly damaged

3. fuel leak is too often and too drastic in Fw 190 series

thanks

HelSqnProtos
03-21-2005, 01:47 AM
S~!

You also have instant braking when you chop the throttle in online play along with that 180 ufo turn, immediate stall recovery and that continuous arcade roll. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

TAGERT.
03-21-2005, 01:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
S~!

You also have instant braking when you chop the throttle in online play along with that 180 ufo turn, immediate stall recovery and that continuous arcade roll. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And I found a fly in my soup.

Hristos
03-21-2005, 02:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
S~!

You also have instant braking when you chop the throttle in online play along with that 180 ufo turn, immediate stall recovery and that continuous arcade roll. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahemm, do you ever fly Fw 190 ? If not, please do not comment on it.

Instant braking ? Fw 190 loses E whenever its pilot pulls on the elevator. Do you wat to tell me that you would like to see an E preserving Fw 190 instead ?

180 ufo turn ? Fw 190 ?!?! I think this is the first time in history of PC simulators someone complains of Fw 190 turning too good !! Big fat LOL !

Arcade roll ?! Have you been playing this sim since 1.0 at all ?!


My mpression is that you're talking out of your a@@. Go online and make 30 kills with Fw 190 against P51s and Spitfires. Then come back here.

Since I never fly a Spitfire you won't find a post on this board where I comment on Spitfire FM.

thank you

TheGozr
03-21-2005, 02:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
Oleg what ever you do make shure you model the yak9U correctly with his fool power and potentiels http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It is the Russian flagship. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunatelly, there was special order to do not use VK-107 on full power on the first serial aircraft that come on the front due to problems with the old VISH propeller reductor oil leak. However some pilots ignored it and flew on full power some time and the speeds they were achived even higher than technical data. But the problem with reductor was solved just in the last couple of months of the war and serial production Yak-9U (with other airintake also) was coming in Germany _probably_ after May 9.

I don't think we would make special versions Yak-9U of some pilots that ignored order and flew on full power...

So, we model these planes that were there really. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oleg_Maddox Do you mean that the Yak9UT didn't come with VK-107 full power?..

1944 yak9U came in 2 models engine~~ at first at the begining had the 107 than switch back to 105 due to those troubles ( prototypes end 43 ) quicly fixed at end 44 ( 107 ) mean time the Yak9UT is 1945, why no full power?

In your sim that yaks serie get a bit forgotten and it's sad because it participate to a lots of theatre in our servers historicals and in competitions and many Online pilots use it. That why in the past i showed it and always hoped to have some reworked of this serie ( false cockpit mesurement etc..hum i rephrase not false but old due to the limitation of the first generation IL2 design )

HelSqnProtos
03-21-2005, 02:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ahemm, do you ever fly Fw 190 ? If not, please do not comment on it.

I never fly a Spitfire and you won't find a post on this board where I comment Spitfire FM in this sim.

thank you <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



S~!

Firstly I will comment on anything I like -- when did you become a moderator here you horse's behind?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif This is a public forum and if you can't handle your OPINION being challenged you should stay away.

Second I have flown it extensively and against it extensively so spare me your holier than thou attitude. Do you think you are the sole FW190 officianado or something? I used to think that some of the Allied guys were whiners ..... Get over yourself.

Hristos
03-21-2005, 02:27 AM
Got any proof of your claims ?

Fw 190 doesn't do UFO turns. Got any tracks where you do it ?

Arcade roll ? Got tracks ?


Until you can prove your claims with tracks, you are simply blabbing.

HelSqnProtos
03-21-2005, 02:29 AM
S~!

Happy to engage you in debate candy butt, I just don't want to hijack this thread. Start your own and perhaps I will participate, or not. But I will decide not you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hristos
03-21-2005, 02:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
S~!

Happy to engage you in debate candy butt, I just don't want to hijack this thread. Start your own and perhaps I will participate, or not. But I will decide not you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Leaving already ?

Producing evidence turned out to be too hard for you ?

HelSqnProtos
03-21-2005, 02:40 AM
Not at all, just don't engage in debates with self confessed killstealers like yourself. How you could post that I will never know but it just goes to show your psychosis.

By the way don't need to produce anything for you. You need to get a life. You have a complex. Take your medication everyday and MAYBE you can control it. lol

If you have a problem I am available, but not here. Make another whiny post and perhaps I will comment perhaps not. If you feel you have something to say, pm me or meet me on ts. Otherwise ....

BY THE WAY I NOTICE YOU KEEP EDITING YOU POSTS -- FEAR THE REACTION LITTLE BOY??

Hristos
03-21-2005, 02:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
Not at all, just don't engage in debates with self confessed killstealers like yourself. By the way don't need to produce anything for you. You need to get a life. You have a complex. Take your medication everyday and MAYBE you can control it. lol <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So far you are only personally attacking me, not debating.

I repeat, if you can't produce evidence for your claims, leave.

thank you

TheGozr
03-21-2005, 02:49 AM
HelSqnProtos and Hristos .

We are trying to get a serious conversation with Oleg so please keep your troubles for PM's thanks.

HelSqnProtos
03-21-2005, 02:58 AM
No problem here, unfortunately Hristo has a complex and doesn't seem to want to pm me as I suggested. Take it to the source gozr. I am already on record as regards to pm's so don't preach to me.

TheGozr
03-21-2005, 03:01 AM
I understand but please thank's

anarchy52
03-21-2005, 03:04 AM
Protos:
http://il2fb-bellum.com.ar/foro/viewtopic.php?t=1703
http://il2fb-bellum.com.ar/foro/viewtopic.php?t=1702
Do we really need such **** here in ORR?

Hristos
03-21-2005, 03:05 AM
Thanks, Gozr, it was my intention to point out known and proven inaccuracies regarding Fw 190.

MG151/20 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3821034482)

Fw190_fuel_leak (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=2381088682)

As for unsupported claims and personal attacks, I am very sorry that someone has brought this thread so low.

Simply, I had to react when dubious claims were posted. It simply is not enough to say "Fw 190 does UFO turns" or "Fw 190 does arcade rolls". Claims are fine, but there has to be proof.

I apologize if I offended anyone.

TAGERT.
03-21-2005, 03:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristos:
Got any proof of your claims ?

Fw 190 doesn't do UFO turns. Got any tracks where you do it ?

Arcade roll ? Got tracks ?


Until you can prove your claims with tracks, you are simply blabbing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, Im glad to see more and more people asking for proof of a wild A$$ claim over just acepting it! And, i agree with you that HelSqnProtos claims of instant braking, 180 ufo turns, immediate stall recover, and arcade roll are unfounded, and thus meaningless.. But, the same could be said about your intal claims of the "too big speed penalty" due to wing damage and too often/drastic "fule" leaks.. In that I dont know of any test data out there to support those claims.. Which does not mean it does not exist, only that I find it hard to belive that a test pilot would fly around while someone shoots at him to see how much it affected the speed and or fule leaks. Just what is it your basing those statments on?

If push came to shove, Ill be HelSqnProtos could at least find some test data on his subjects.. roll rates, turns.. Ill bet that when he does he will find that he is wrong.. But at least he could find it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kwiatos
03-21-2005, 03:20 AM
In new FM will be more difference in climb rate of plane in range speed from best climb speed to stall speed?

Hristos
03-21-2005, 03:21 AM
In the spirit of this thread, I back away from "drastic fuel leak" and "huge speed loss" claims, until proven.

Such data is too hard to test, except from a huge statistical research. Roll rate and turn performance can be readily tested, but battle damage is something you need a statistical data.

Once you take statistics as a credible source, you cannot but notice the number of Fw 190 types who state these two issues.

So, if there is no historical test data, I suggest:

- same speed penalty according to relative wing damage
- fuel leak rate erlative to the round which hit, decreasing with time with self sealing tanks

Example:
A plane with overall toughness 100 gets hit with one bullet in wing. Let's say it takes away 0.1% of its top speed at all altitudes.

A plane with overall toughness 200 gets hit by the same bullet in the wing. How about it loses 0.05% of its top speed ?

A plane gets hit in the fuel tank. According to number of hits, the Q=V/t is the amount of fuel it loses. Depending on tank capacity and amount of fuel, it should lose the fuel. Fuel tank position and hit position are already modeled and taken into account with DM. The rest is rather simple.

Another factor are self sealing tanks.

Bearcat99
03-21-2005, 06:48 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif Keep it civil and on topic.. if some of you have issues go PT.. not here.

WWMaxGunz
03-21-2005, 08:58 AM
Almost anyone can take a canvas, brushes and paints and make a picture.
For the very experienced artist with talent, it is not hard to make a very good picture.
The same good picture is impossible for the untrained or talentless.

I'll leave off the subject of the Masters..... there is more to flying combat than making
turns. A well flown fight is more like an improvised composition than a mad dash to throw
paint all over the canvas.

TAGERT.
03-21-2005, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristos:
In the spirit of this thread, I back away from "drastic fuel leak" and "huge speed loss" claims, until proven. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Until? If ever imho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristos:
Such data is too hard to test, except from a huge statistical research. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huge is an understatment.. In that your sample is typically from one side only.. The side that lived to tell about it.. But, sense alot of the Lw action was over their own country, alot of them got to bail out and live to tell about it.. Problem is now you have to rely on combat storys.. Which have thier own set of problems when used as a statistical data point. All in all it will boil down to a wild a$$ guess (WAG) which is no biggie really.. In that is what most statistical stuff is in the end anyways. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristos:
Roll rate and turn performance can be readily tested, but battle damage is something you need a statistical data. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed, and Disagree.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristos:
Once you take statistics as a credible source, you cannot but notice the number of Fw 190 types who state these two issues. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can not think of one combat story where the guy was getting shot.. and then took the time to notice that his plane was 23mph slower due to 11 .50 cal shots in the left wing and 4, no 6.. wait make that 7 .50 cals in the right wing. Do you?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristos:
So, if there is no historical test data, I suggest:

- same speed penalty according to relative wing damage
- fuel leak rate erlative to the round which hit, decreasing with time with self sealing tanks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have no idea what or how the DM works.. But I trust that Oleg filled in the blanks with good Engineering estimates.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristos:
Example:
A plane with overall toughness 100 gets hit with one bullet in wing. Let's say it takes away 0.1% of its top speed at all altitudes.

A plane with overall toughness 200 gets hit by the same bullet in the wing. How about it loses 0.05% of its top speed ?

A plane gets hit in the fuel tank. According to number of hits, the Q=V/t is the amount of fuel it loses. Depending on tank capacity and amount of fuel, it should lose the fuel. Fuel tank position and hit position are already modeled and taken into account with DM. The rest is rather simple.

Another factor are self sealing tanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Who knows.. maybe it is done that way? Only thing I know for sure, nobody has provided a track file to show that it is or is not done this way.. Or any other way for that mater.

gkll
03-21-2005, 09:18 AM
so Oleg decides to post and add some real information to the thread... and a bunch of guys go and hijack it with a bunch of useless name calling...

theres some good thoughts and questions related to the new FM in this thread, although how the boss could be bothered to sort it out I don't know....

Wolf-Strike
03-21-2005, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dali:
maybe I was not clear enough - it is not the question either WWII airplanes were difficlult to master or not. I'm not in position to judge that, I've flown many planes but unfortunately no warbirds. What I wanted to say is - new FM demands new approach to using the joystick and thinking about energy in flight. I'm not saying it is going to be more difficult or easier than before. As I said, I don't want to discuss details, that's Oleg's field. I just wanted to clear what he ment in his post. But to clear the air a bit - I've read first impressions of new FM by one of the P-51 pilots (the real one) and he is happy with the new model
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dali,thanks for the little hints as I know that Oleg probably wants everyone tightly shut for now.Just wanted to know if the P51 pilot mentioned anything about the P51's notoriously unstable center of balance with full fuel load.Or is this something to wait for in BOB?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We model only simultaniosly and proportional use of the fuel from all fuel tanks in the current model (and it's not related FM functions really). Switches and other methiods we plan to model in the future sims. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds great.I can wait,thanks,Oleg and keep pushing! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Cattail4
03-21-2005, 10:12 AM
Oleg, or any beta tester, can you give us some idea on how much more computing power we are going to need to make these new FM's flyable. Right now the sim runs ok, I'm concerned that with the new FM it will make it unflyable(less than 25 fps). One should not have to go out and buy a whole new puter just to be able to use a "patch".

TAGERT.
03-21-2005, 11:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cattail4:
Oleg, or any beta tester, can you give us some idea on how much more computing power we are going to need to make these new FM's flyable. Right now the sim runs ok, I'm concerned that with the new FM it will make it unflyable(less than 25 fps). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Or anyone, in that this is a forum, thus I take a wack at it.. From Oleg's orginal post he did note that the new FM will use/need more PC cycles to process the extra calculations.. He went on to note that this will come into play when there is alot of aircraft in the sky.. Because the AI flys the same FM. When you flying OFFLINE your PC has to handle the processing for your planes FM calculations and the AI's planes FM calculations. The more AI in the air, the more calls to the FM routines.. So you can see how your PC might not get as good of a FPS as it did before in a OFFLINE game.. But, the good news is that while your online your PC only has to calculate ONE FM, YOURS! So, you may not even notice it while your online. Because the only extra load is that little bit extra FM calc.. Keep in mind your PC is NOT calculating the FM's of the other REAL people online.. Thier PC is doing that on their end, only thing your PC sees is the state vector (position, etc) from thier PC to yours.. So, if you play ONLINE you probally wont even notice it much.. But OFFLINE people might when the AI count is high.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cattail4:
One should not have to go out and buy a whole new puter just to be able to use a "patch". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I feel your pain, but, flight simming is an expensive hobby.. The sim makers target the mid to uppper PC's because that is where most of the gamers are.. I think it is selfish of the MINORITY min PC requirments people to try and hold back the ART OF FLIGHT SIMS by using the "My Poor PC" excuse. It is an expensive hobby, keep up, or get out of the way.. And dont grab onto my belt and expect me to stand here with you.

Hristos
03-21-2005, 11:19 AM
Somewhere you need to fill in engineering data, somewhere you put historical (read anecdotal) accounts.

For example, how do we know for sure P47 was more durable than a P51 ? Well, in game it certainly is. There are no tests, no calculations. Only sound logic and pilot accounts.

One has to look at P47 and compare it to other fighters to get the impression it is a tough and durable plane (unless it has a design weakness, of course).

Now, nobody knows for sure how much a .50 inch hole in a wing slowed down a 2000+ hp, 4500kg plane. Sound logic suggests - not very much. Engineering data ? How much resistance would such a hole add ? Anyone ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

An interesting test would be to see how much open/close radiator flaps affect speed, compared to one .50 cal hit in the wing.

lindyman
03-21-2005, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
On a UK TV programme they took a person who had only flown general aviation sims and put him in a plane and got him to fly it. He could, apart from slightly fluffing the landing (the instructor took over at the last moment). The former sim-only pilot said that the experience of flying a real plane was very different. The instructor said he was very good.

No conclusions there, just an observation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As others have said, normal flight in a benign GA aircraft is one thing, gusty crosswind landing in a twitchy tail dragger is another.

How long do you think it takes an average C172 or PA28 pilot, with 400hrs experience, to learn to fly a Cub? Now, the Cub is extremely easy to fly, but even an easy to handle tailwheel plane is a very different thing compared to even a high performance nose gear plane.

I know of one who was signed off on the Cub after just under 30 landings dual, and the flight instructor was extremely impressed. 5-6 hours training is not unusual, and here we're talking about a very easy to fly plane and reasonably experienced pilots.
_
/Bjorn.

TAGERT.
03-21-2005, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristos:
Somewhere you need to fill in engineering data, somewhere you put historical (read anecdotal) accounts.

For example, how do we know for sure P47 was more durable than a P51 ? Well, in game it certainly is. There are no tests, no calculations. Only sound logic and pilot accounts.

One has to look at P47 and compare it to other fighters to get the impression it is a tough and durable plane (unless it has a design weakness, of course).

Now, nobody knows for sure how much a .50 inch hole in a wing slowed down a 2000+ hp, 4500kg plane. Sound logic suggests - not very much. Engineering data ? How much resistance would such a hole add ? Anyone ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

An interesting test would be to see how much open/close radiator flaps affect speed, compared to one .50 cal hit in the wing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! Im sure that anecdotal plays into it all.. Which is why I think most of it is just a WAG! But, somethings like strural strenght could be *sumarized* by looking at the blue prints.. But, Im sure that is a start point and the anecdotal stuff is iccing on the cake. Problem there is your human bias can kick in.. Where as you could show your method of how you concluded it by looking at a blue pint.. How do you show your method of your bias? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HelSqnProtos
03-21-2005, 12:07 PM
Well you can quantify "toughness" or a planes ability to withstand battle damage from blueprints. Obviously a liquid cooled engine is much more prone to failure with fewer hits from smaller cal than would be a radial. This is of course also open to interpretation because obviously if you take hits from a .30 cal on either engine it won't matter -- they are both done. But I do agree that engineering specs are an excellent starting point as opposed to pilot "accounts"

As for how much a fifty hit would slow down a warbird -- totally open to the type of hit, placement, velocity ect... Obviously a hit in the leading is different from on mid wing. I think it is only natural to assume that plane weight and design play the biggest role in durability. You wouldn't compare a Jug to a Zero. Those types of "proofs" are valid for me. Pilot impressions while important are not always a true indicator.

TAGERT.
03-21-2005, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
Well you can quantify "toughness" or a planes ability to withstand battle damage from blueprints. Obviously a liquid cooled engine is much more prone to failure with fewer hits from smaller cal than would be a radial. This is of course also open to interpretation because obviously if you take hits from a .30 cal on either engine it won't matter -- they are both done. But I do agree that engineering specs are an excellent starting point as opposed to pilot "accounts"

As for how much a fifty hit would slow down a warbird -- totally open to the type of hit, placement, velocity ect... Obviously a hit in the leading is different from on mid wing. I think it is only natural to assume that plane weight and design play the biggest role in durability. You wouldn't compare a Jug to a Zero. Those types of "proofs" are valid for me. Pilot impressions while important are not always a true indicator. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

quiet_man
03-21-2005, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by quiet_man:
hmm, Oleg finally changes the joystick modelling
....
quiet_man <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did you get that? I don't remember seeing it in Olegs' post.
All Dali wrote was you will have to use the stick differently which don't 1:1 that to me
so I'm wondering where Oleg put out about a change in the stick interface. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dali: "joystick is now more flying stick as it was before"

as the current modell is something like "strength used", I interprete this as change

we will see

quiet_man

TheGozr
03-21-2005, 02:57 PM
Oleg something is missing of what you says on the Yak9U
Read also in the view aircraft in the game.
SOmething is deeply wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Small video of the rounded cockpit (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/il2/images/yak9Uroundpit.wmv)

Yak9M,K and T are not completly correct as well in the armement the yak9U came with many variants of armement capabilities due to it's maneuvrabily and speed high and low it was a killing machine. but in game lets make it flying with the troubled engine and no armement.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Why not to make in fly with a leak than as well.....

TheGozr
03-21-2005, 03:24 PM
Btw guys it's not a whine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif hum hum it's just because i know this plane and i like a litle bit more attention to make it correct that way it is more enjoyable for all in the correctness of the specs and weaponery. Choice and real varieties of any airplane is shuch a joy.

In Historical meetings is great to be able to re-use the real stat of mind and hardware.

anarchy52
03-21-2005, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
Btw guys it's not a whine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif hum hum it's just because i know this plane and i like a litle bit more attention to make it correct that way it is more enjoyable for all... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course it's not a whine, allied (won the war) can't whine.

Only luftwhiners whine (lost the war)...

Yes, I'm being sarcastic (sorry couldn't resist)

karost
03-21-2005, 06:28 PM
before we knowed how good FM in IL2 original some of us learned from the Demo version right ?

so BOB should presend us with demo version and let our community test "how good" and give a credit all over network.

well... please join an idea , what do you think.
or you guys like a surprise...? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!.

TAGERT.
03-21-2005, 07:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karost:
before we knowed how good FM in IL2 original some of us learned from the Demo version right ?

so BOB should presend us with demo version and let our community test "how good" and give a credit all over network.

well... please join an idea , what do you think.
or you guys like a surprise...? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I like surprise.. As in SURPRISE! Oleg is providing you with a FREE UPGRADE that will bring your current sim up to modern standards. The cost of admission is you have to be patient and understand that with anything new there could be problems... But, when you consider the FACT that even with old you have problems.. So it doesn't really mater. The silver lining, your current sim will benefit from the new work we are currently doing on our new sim. Unprecedented really, most sim makers don't really care about the old sim once they move on to the next one.

LEXX_Luthor
03-21-2005, 08:02 PM
TAGERT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>SURPRISE! Oleg is providing you with a FREE UPGRADE that will bring your current sim... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
...to its Knees. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your system will kneel and <http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif> to the New FM Order. I wonder what may happen to 3rd Party missions and campaigns that may not run with the New FM calculations.

How will AI behavior differ with New FM?

Cheer me up Tag. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TAGERT.
03-21-2005, 09:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
...to its Knees. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your system will kneel and http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif to the New FM Order. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Doubt that very Very VERY much. In that the only thing that Oleg said that would hint at it being a problem is with lots of AI in the air.. Because a 5% hit is not that much when it is just you flying.. As is the case when your ONLINE in a DF.. But OFFLINE with say 15 AI planes in the air, that is 15x5%. So, you see, the only real problem, if any, will be for the OFFLINE folks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I wonder what may happen to 3rd Party missions and campaigns that may not run with the New FM calculations.
How will AI behavior differ with New FM? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Anything to do with AI flying may need some adjustments.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Cheer me up Tag. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ONLINE, no prob, it is just you and your AC thus one FM runninig.. OFFLINE, could be a problem when lots of AI are flying.

BuzzU
03-21-2005, 09:53 PM
Aren't the majority of players offline? This doesn't sound good for them.

WWMaxGunz
03-21-2005, 09:53 PM
Online, your PC shares some of the AI load. AI includes ground units.

WWMaxGunz
03-21-2005, 09:55 PM
People should also remember that the new FM is not mandatory.
There is supposed to be a switch.
Easier to use than setting DOT RANGE which, yes, is beyond most players it seems.

TAGERT.
03-21-2005, 11:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Online, your PC shares some of the AI load. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe in a coop, if the COOP includes AI, but there is NO AI in DF. On that note, most peoples FPS goes to H in a coop now with the current FM, so, you might not notice it either. Hard to tell bad from real bad. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
AI includes ground units. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But ground units aint using the more complex FM, FM is only for stuff that flys! So, you shouldnt see any more or less FPS hit for the current amount of ground targets than you did before.

TAGERT.
03-21-2005, 11:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
People should also remember that the new FM is not mandatory.
There is supposed to be a switch.
Easier to use than setting DOT RANGE which, yes, is beyond most players it seems. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I find that hard to belive? Where did you read that? To switch from one FM to another with a switch? Hmmmm, I guess, but, I find that hard to belive. Got Link?

gkll
03-22-2005, 12:32 AM
WWWMaxGunz said "Almost anyone can take a canvas, brushes and paints and make a picture.
For the very experienced artist with talent, it is not hard to make a very good picture.
The same good picture is impossible for the untrained or talentless.

I'll leave off the subject of the Masters..... there is more to flying combat than making
turns. A well flown fight is more like an improvised composition than a mad dash to throw
paint all over the canvas."

Yeah I agree with that but also there is just the 'racing bit'. There's a lot of stuff you can do with a plane, way more than a car, and hey no wall to hit if you feck up....

New FM now that I read all the relevant posts appears to be my dream come true - I salute the boss for making it happen.

TAGERT.
03-22-2005, 12:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gkll:
Yeah I agree with that <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The whole painting analogy is a good one.. To describe the difference between a good and bad pilot.. But it does not mean that painting is hard to do for either the of the painters, just that one is better at doing it. Same is true for pilots, there are good and bad pilots.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gkll:
but also there is just the 'racing bit'. There's a lot of stuff you can do with a plane, way more than a car, and hey no wall to hit if you feck up.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No wall? What about mother earth? It's not the fall that kills you.. it is the suden stops <G>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gkll:
New FM now that I read all the relevant posts appears to be my dream come true - I salute the boss for making it happen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

JG54_Arnie
03-22-2005, 01:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg Maddox.:
It is likely that some people may have a problem in their first attempts to fly with the new flight model, especially with take-offs and landings when FM is set to €˜realistic€. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Does this mean its optional? Beats me.

But we'll see, its gonna be a blast. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

TAGERT.
03-22-2005, 01:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg Maddox.:
It is likely that some people may have a problem in their first attempts to fly with the new flight model, especially with take-offs and landings when FM _is set to €˜realistic€_. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Does this mean its optional? Beats me.

But we'll see, its gonna be a blast. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My *guess* is Oleg is refering to the *realistic option* that has been part of IL2-Pf sense day one.. Not an option between new and old FM. I wonder if that is the same thing Max was refering to?

WWMaxGunz
03-22-2005, 02:07 AM
Yup, sure is.

Note he says FM set to realistic.
Not the same as Takeoffs and Landings or Torque and Spins.

Been a while since I set option toggles but I don't remember a specific one for FM,
just a few different FM characteristic ones. Maybe I just forgot since I wouldn't
use it as the game is and probably just set it the once with 4.0.

I believe that how many planes I see in a mission is controllable in DCG. I can
live with fewer until I upgrade. Current CPU is AMD 2500 and RAM is 333, I can drop
a 3200 in there and it will clock up as the true clock is 2.1-some Gz. (Intel takes
more cycles on average due to architecture, always have. It's not like others inflate
but rather the opposite when you have to divide clock by *extra* to get operations.)
Right now I see pricewatch has AMD 3200 lowest at $99. With Athlon 64's selling it is
only some time for that to drop.

JG54_Arnie
03-22-2005, 02:25 AM
Well, he could mean that he himself set it to realistic by patching the game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But it's not important actually, we wont know how it changes specs for the game untill we try it.

You should drop in an extra ram stick as well Max, that would help a lot, bring it up to at least 512. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-22-2005, 02:45 AM
Got a full Gig of RAM. The speed is 333 as I didn't have enough for all 400mz in one go
and I understand it's a lot easier to mix 333 RAM than 400.

JG54_Arnie
03-22-2005, 03:06 AM
ah rgr. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TAGERT.
03-22-2005, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yup, sure is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, ok

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Note he says FM set to realistic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Note the button
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/FM_SETTINGS.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Not the same as Takeoffs and Landings or Torque and Spins. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Never said it was, I just *think* that when Oleg said FM set to realistic, he was refering to the choice between Easy, Normal, and REALISTIC. Setting it to REALISTIC turns on the FM choices and others. So, I really doubt he is going to add a button for FM that chooses between the OLD and NEW FM.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Been a while since I set option toggles but I don't remember a specific one for FM, just a few different FM characteristic ones. Maybe I just forgot since I wouldn't use it as the game is and probably just set it the once with 4.0. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Same here, I had to go and look to see what options were on that page, some are related to the FM, some are not, but I do recal the Easy, Normal, and REALISTIC choices.. And Ill bet you a dollar that when Oleg said REALISTIC he was refering to that button on that menu.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I believe that how many planes I see in a mission is controllable in DCG. I can live with fewer until I upgrade. Current CPU is AMD 2500 and RAM is 333, I can drop a 3200 in there and it will clock up as the true clock is 2.1-some Gz. (Intel takes more cycles on average due to architecture, always have. It's not like others inflate but rather the opposite when you have to divide clock by *extra* to get operations.) Right now I see pricewatch has AMD 3200 lowest at $99. With Athlon 64's selling it is only some time for that to drop. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True, and that is *IF* it is even a problem.. My only point is to point out that when your online, your PC is just calculating your FM, nobody eleses.. So you probally wont notice a FPS hit due to the new FM. The only time it could show up is, like Oleg alluded to, when lots of AI is flying around with you.. Because your PC has to calc all the AI FM's too. Which only happens OFFLINE, or in a COOP for the host.

BuzzU
03-22-2005, 11:10 AM
I'm just guessing here, but maybe when he said set to Realistic it means that setting also kicks in the new FM. Over and above what it does now. In other words, you need to have everything tuned on to get the new FM.

JG54_Arnie
03-22-2005, 12:25 PM
Hmm, I think Tagert is right, looks like Oleg just said that when you set all settings to realism it becomes harder to take off and land, or at least, something to get used to. All buttons will just tweak the new FM as it used to do to the old one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-22-2005, 12:37 PM
TAGERT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Because a 5% hit is not that much when it is just you flying.. As is the case when your ONLINE in a DF.. But OFFLINE with say 15 AI planes in the air, that is 15x5%. So, you see, the only real problem, if any, will be for the OFFLINE folks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We can start some numbers now. Just flying offline yourself as the only plane, doubling Time Speed, say from 2x to 4x for example, does not effect framerate. Add AI into the mix and you reach numbers where a specific Time Speed doubling will cut the framerate in half or more.

The problem we face is that we only now are getting the hardware to run realistic frontline battlefield situations with many AI planes. New FM may drag us back to the early days of FB where we were limited in the number of AI planes that must be place carefully in the mission because only a few AI planes could be used. However, New FM does sound exciting too, but it may or may not be a huge tradeoff for an air warfare simulation (as opposed to internet Dogfight).

LEXX_Luthor
03-22-2005, 12:52 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif I may be Panicking when I don't need to.

The most framerate kills are scored when AI aircraft enter combat. The combat and gun shell trajectories seem to be what kills framerate far more than OLd FM.

I can run far over 100+ aircraft at Normal Time Speed with good framerate, and its only when they enter combat when the framerate goes below....Zero. As a realistic battlefield mission design does NOT have all aircraft entering combat all at the same time, we should be Safe...hopefully.

This is called Cheering yourself up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-22-2005, 01:07 PM
Yeah I forgot about that macro-toggle.
I suggest thinking about how it works because it seems (only seems) to me that all it
does is change groups of the other toggles. Hit that realistic button and then go and
say, switch turbulence off -- it is no longer the same.

I am guessing based on what was in a thread months ago about them testing a new FM for
BoB using IL2 engine that this is a result of that with more work. There were tracks
and posts taken and translated. There were posts from Oleg. At the time it was just
a way to examine something new for BoB. And the elements of that were very much like
some of what I read for this not so much later in coding time at all. Might be good
to re-read that old thread if you can find it.
Based only on that I can guess that if no new toggles are added then Torque and Gyro will
be different and maybe also Stalls and Spins. By the time 4.0 is out, whatever a tester
sees now may change but maybe Dali sees different things and just can't say.

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

Many months ago I wrote an email to Oleg suggesting using an AI-only client to allow
taking the load off the PC resources. It was after he wrote of limited resources.
My idea was that offline users with an extra PC (wouldn't have to be new, AI-only
client wouldn't need to run graphics for example) on LAN and servers set up the same
would be able to run more AI.
I don't know if he understood all I wrote as I meant it. Part of it is that the way
to do it depended on using online aspects of the sim to work on a LAN so with so much
english maybe there was a loss of how it would benefit offline players with an old
and a new PC. Old ones are cheap enough when you've been upgrading or just having
to buy the next, you may already have one or half of one -- I know I did.
He responded that online, the AI load is shared more than I realize. Well that is good,
but offline it's no help. But still, it tells me that online Coops the load is shared
though I don't know what all the details are.

Consider also that any predictive flight the game makes (messages about what another
plane is doing come to your PC with delay. the game flies the plane until then. it is
not something new in the industry.) has to be done on the client and that may also be
more complex.

OldMan____
03-22-2005, 01:13 PM
Max.. do not change your 2500 for a 3200. Most 2500 XP is same processor as 3200.. just put your FSB at 400 and if your PC at boot up recognizes as a 3200... voilá.. no money.. great upgrade. I ran my 2500 at 3200 for one year before exchanging it for a AMD 64.

WWMaxGunz
03-22-2005, 01:39 PM
Yeah but will the 333mz RAM take it?
I tried running the multiplier up to get the clock over 2.0G but the system wasn't stable
or so I thought so I clocked back down. True clock is 1.833gz right now. I suspect the
mobo isn't all that great anyway but I did have other minor Windoze problems as well.

TheGozr
03-22-2005, 02:43 PM
Don't touch the multiplier just the fsb and get a good cooling heat sink. i run one pc with an 2500 for a year now as well above 3200 speed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sharkey888
03-22-2005, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
...to its Knees. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your system will kneel and http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif to the New FM Order. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Doubt that very Very VERY much. In that the only thing that Oleg said that would hint at it being a problem is with lots of AI in the air.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The more I hear the scarier it gets. I really hope we don't have to settle for formations of 24 or 36 AI bombers.

This new FM/DM is all great for the online crowd, but I hope us offliners don't get screwed by it's complexity!

This is the BOB, with 100's of HE-111's in the air and a look into later in the war could be more depressing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

BaldieJr
03-22-2005, 03:39 PM
Just give me an excuse to upgrade. Please.

I have not bought any new computer toys for 13 months. I'm friken jonesin' for a new mobo or somethin.

NorrisMcWhirter
03-22-2005, 04:57 PM
Shock Tech News!

Intel and AMD enter bidding war for 1C:Maddox games.

Read for yourselves:
www.theregister.co.uk/shareholdertosspotfrenzy/cobblers (http://www.thecashregister.co.uk/shareholdertosspotfrenzy/cobblers)

Cheers,
Norris

HelSqnProtos
03-22-2005, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Just give me an excuse to upgrade. Please.

I have not bought any new computer toys for 13 months. I'm friken jonesin' for a new mobo or somethin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


S~!

O yeeaaaah BABY!!!

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-22-2005, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Got a full Gig of RAM. The speed is 333 as I didn't have enough for all 400mz in one go
and I understand it's a lot easier to mix 333 RAM than 400. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You get more performance out of your PC when you RAM speed matches your FSB speed. More so on AMDs, but true in most cases.

TAGERT.
03-22-2005, 11:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
He responded that online, the AI load is shared more than I realize. Well that is good, but offline it's no help. But still, it tells me that online Coops the load is shared
though I don't know what all the details are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I did read something about that a few years ago.. I guess it wouldnt be to hard to have your PC pick up and run the AI FM when your within a certain range.. WarBrids, with it's hundreds and hundreds of playings all withing one map does something simular.. That is you will only *see* at most the closest 32 planes to your plane (they may have increaed that sense the last time I played it). It became very clear during a big online event where we had a formation of about 30+ B17s with about 20 escorts.. Pilots were reporting that they could not see the lead B17 anymore.. it kept disapearing.. Same was true when the Lw finally found us.. Guys were calling out location of enmy.. you would look and see nothing.. Because there were 32 planes closer to you than those were.. Then all of a suddne BLAMO! They would pop into view as if a transporter droped them off next to you. So, maybe IL2-PF will switch to running the AI routines on the PC of the guy closes to that indivitual AI? That way you would get a little better response on your end where it maters.. But, to be honest, if that is what is going on I would have expect AI to work a little better ONLINE than it does now.. It still has that lag look to it as if the server is doing all the work.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Consider also that any predictive flight the game makes (messages about what another plane is doing come to your PC with delay. the game flies the plane until then. it is not something new in the industry.) has to be done on the client and that may also be more complex. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, but the prediction stuff is not really a full FM calculation.. It is just an extrapolation of the current position and velocity vector as if the plane didnt recive any new inputs.. Which is also a big source of the WARP.. In that you PC is guessing at the next position due to the last position and velocity vecotr.. As if the pilot did not move the stick.. Then when you get the update, the graphics has to correct for the actul position.. Which is why that stick sturing poblem is such a problem.

VFA-195 Snacky
03-23-2005, 01:52 AM
Do any of you work??

Viking-S
03-23-2005, 05:49 AM
Or have a life?

Eg . Tagert have managed 1617 posts in 386 days = 4.2 posts a day!!
Wake up call! Get real!

JG54_Arnie
03-23-2005, 07:29 AM
Eh, give us(?) or them, or whoever you are pointing at a break. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 5 posts a day, would equal say 5 x 5 = 25 minutes of typing, and for Tagert its easy, he can just copy paste his standard format of quotes and add his few oneliners there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Although he's been involved in essays lately, or so it seems. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Btw, what is this concept work you guys are talking about? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

OldMan____
03-23-2005, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yeah but will the 333mz RAM take it?
I tried running the multiplier up to get the clock over 2.0G but the system wasn't stable
or so I thought so I clocked back down. True clock is 1.833gz right now. I suspect the
mobo isn't all that great anyway but I did have other minor Windoze problems as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have to raise your Vcore to correct 3200 standard. I think is 1.7v.. I used 1.725. You can leave your memory at 333 MHz.. it would be better with 400.. but even witha 266 RAm your 3200 would be much faster (on IL2) than a 2500 with ddr400.

You need to look find out if your mobo has the correct PCI divider /lock to eneble you put your FSB at 400 (if your mobo support FSB 400 for a xp3200.. so it will have thecorrect divider)

It is pretty easy to make this overclock.



DO NOT TOUCH the multiplier!!! Use FSB only!!

TAGERT.
03-23-2005, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
Do any of you work?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And they say Im an Off topic troll.

TAGERT.
03-23-2005, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Viking-S:
Or have a life? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup, a nice one actually. Going to collage after getting out of the Army really paid off for me, it allowed me to get a nice job that allows me to flex my hours.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Viking-S:
Eg . Tagert have managed 1617 posts in 386 days = 4.2 posts a day!! Wake up call! Get real! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Probably does seem like a lot to a guy driving a trash truck 12hrs a day?

Aaron_GT
03-23-2005, 10:35 AM
Old Man wrote:
"Max.. do not change your 2500 for a 3200. Most 2500 XP is same processor as 3200.. just put your FSB at 400 and if your PC at boot up recognizes as a 3200... voilá.. no money.. great upgrade. I ran my 2500 at 3200 for one year before exchanging it for a AMD 64."

I just tried an XP-TMC to try and run a Sempron 3000 on a motherboard that only runs at 266 (133x2) but the thing was multiplier locked. So I've splashed out an extra 100 pounds on getting a new motherboard and a new 1GB RAM, but the motherboard and RAM will run at 400 FSB, so maybe I have a chance of overclocking the Sempron 3000!

Aaron_GT
03-23-2005, 10:41 AM
Tagert wrote:
" I guess it wouldnt be to hard to have your PC pick up and run the AI FM when your within a certain range.."

Distributed programming of that sort is actually pretty tricky, mostly due to the plethora of ways things can go wrong and the number of ways you have to think of to gracefully recover from this. Sony does a lot of work (if quietly) in this area.

WWMaxGunz
03-23-2005, 01:58 PM
It's already done offline, really, or how it should be the code tasks run the same and
difference is in hardware and offline, one PC runs all the tasks. The code should be
the same modules except for point to point communications. That's why there's sockets.

OldMan____
03-23-2005, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Old Man wrote:
"Max.. do not change your 2500 for a 3200. Most 2500 XP is same processor as 3200.. just put your FSB at 400 and if your PC at boot up recognizes as a 3200... voilá.. no money.. great upgrade. I ran my 2500 at 3200 for one year before exchanging it for a AMD 64."

I just tried an XP-TMC to try and run a Sempron 3000 on a motherboard that only runs at 266 (133x2) but the thing was multiplier locked. So I've splashed out an extra 100 pounds on getting a new motherboard and a new 1GB RAM, but the motherboard and RAM will run at 400 FSB, so maybe I have a chance of overclocking the Sempron 3000! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

knightflyte
03-25-2005, 12:20 AM
You know what I love about these new flight models? That AI will have the same flight variables applied to them.

I REALLY REALLY hate trying to kill my AI squad mate after he has stolen my kill. Seems he can float with angels wings and dance on the head of a pin.....seems like he can spin and turn and generally do any bending of physics to stay on my left or right side.

Yeah, I know killing squad mates is bad.....but DAM!!!! that cheezes my bisquits when I've been chasing a bogey, getting him to bleed enough energy so I can finally line up my shot...only to have my squadie either accidently shoot me or steal my hard work.

(As an aside, this is the ONLY thing that will ruin my enthusiasm for BoB - kill stealing and shooting friendlies by AI)

quiet_man
03-25-2005, 05:32 AM
hey! You have been warned!!!
stop posting and go out earning money for your IL2FB+AEP+PF-post-patch PC http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

quiet_man

nearmiss
03-25-2005, 12:16 PM
All this about improved FM is just WOW awesome.

Flying virtual aircraft in Il2 series has always topped everything sim wise, but still a departure from full real power feel. Of course, there isn't much can be done about the lack of G forces. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

It's hard to realize how far off the current FM has been.

Banzai.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

We're looking at a whole lot more power in WW2 aircraft than 1,000 to 1,500 HP. Many of WWII high performance fighter aircraft were supercharged as well.

I still and always have given Oleg credit for doing the best he could to maintain a virtual FM that addressed the needs of a divergent group of users, from neophytes to real pilots.

I never believed the FM were addressed to real fighter pilots of any genre.

This is great news and I think everyone should be full scale "ELATED"

BuzzU
03-25-2005, 11:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
All this about improved FM is just WOW awesome.

Flying virtual aircraft in Il2 series has always topped everything sim wise, but still a departure from full real power feel. Of course, there isn't much can be done about the lack of G forces. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

It's hard to realize how far off the current FM has been. I was a shoe in a AA/F dragster for several years and I can tell you...1,000+ horsepower is an unbeliveable rush in real life. When you've got fire belching 15 feet into the air from the headers and the rear wheels are bouncing off the ground just from the torque the engine is creating.

Psychedelic Drugs is nothing like taking a ride behind 1,000+ HP

Banzai.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

We're looking at a whole lot more power in WW2 aircraft than 1,000 to 1,500 HP. Many of WWII high performance fighter aircraft were supercharged as well.

I still and always have given Oleg credit for doing the best he could to maintain a virtual FM that addressed the needs of a divergent group of users, from neophytes to real pilots.

I never believed the FM were addressed to real fighter pilots of any genre.

This is great news and I think everyone should be full scale "ELATED" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sort of doubt you drove a AA Fuel dragster if you think they have 1000 HP.

They have 4000 HP.

badatflyski
03-26-2005, 05:17 AM
Any new stuff in il2 is a great news for everyone, the new clouds are great (at least it seems to be)but what about the new FM's? If it makes a spitfire turn better on high speeds than now and a 190 dropping more speed and beeing "more" completely unstable'cause it get ONE .303 bullet in the wing it would be a desapointment for a lot of us...so called the Luftwheenie flyers.
Just for info: the FW had a better rollrate than any other allied planes in WW2, the 190 pilot could get more G forces (that what the "others" called ufo turn) due to the pilot seat position and so on a high speed turn, it could get a spitfire without any problem( not like now , try to follow a spit in a high speed turn, you will get the black screen but the spit will not!And yes the mg151 are undemodellized! (for the LW fans http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)
Anyway, we CAN'T talk about the new FM if we didn't try it!!!!!, so keep cool guys, wait and see,Oleg, great work man!

Ps: try Intel instead of AMD, more "stable".... i did it and absolutely not disapointed!

a luftwheenie!

nearmiss
03-26-2005, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
All this about improved FM is just WOW awesome.

Flying virtual aircraft in Il2 series has always topped everything sim wise, but still a departure from full real power feel. Of course, there isn't much can be done about the lack of G forces. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Psychedelic Drugs is nothing like taking a ride behind 1,000+ HP

Banzai.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

We're looking at a whole lot more power in WW2 aircraft than 1,000 to 1,500 HP. Many of WWII high performance fighter aircraft were supercharged as well.

I still and always have given Oleg credit for doing the best he could to maintain a virtual FM that addressed the needs of a divergent group of users, from neophytes to real pilots.

I never believed the FM were addressed to real fighter pilots of any genre.

This is great news and I think everyone should be full scale "ELATED" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sort of doubt you drove a AA Fuel dragster if you think they have 1000 HP.

They have 4000 HP. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BuzzU you're outta line. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

I don't have to prove poop to you so I'll just remove that from my posting and you can think or believe whatever you want.

Here is a link for calculating horsepower...

CLICK to HORSEPOWER CALCS (http://www.ajdesigner.com/phphorsepower/horsepower_equation_rotating_horsepower.php)

Maybe you should think before you let your mouth outrun your brain.

There are other sites as well...I don't care how you poke your numbers you'll never get close to 4,000 hp or half that on an 8 cyclinder automobile engine supercharged and fueled with nitro-methane.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

BuzzU
03-26-2005, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
All this about improved FM is just WOW awesome.

Flying virtual aircraft in Il2 series has always topped everything sim wise, but still a departure from full real power feel. Of course, there isn't much can be done about the lack of G forces. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

It's hard to realize how far off the current FM has been. I was a shoe in a AA/F dragster for several years and I can tell you...1,000+ horsepower is an unbeliveable rush in real life. When you've got fire belching 15 feet into the air from the headers and the rear wheels are bouncing off the ground just from the torque the engine is creating.

Psychedelic Drugs is nothing like taking a ride behind 1,000+ HP

Banzai.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

We're looking at a whole lot more power in WW2 aircraft than 1,000 to 1,500 HP. Many of WWII high performance fighter aircraft were supercharged as well.

I still and always have given Oleg credit for doing the best he could to maintain a virtual FM that addressed the needs of a divergent group of users, from neophytes to real pilots.

I never believed the FM were addressed to real fighter pilots of any genre.

This is great news and I think everyone should be full scale "ELATED" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sort of doubt you drove a AA Fuel dragster if you think they have 1000 HP.

They have 4000 HP. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BuzzU you're outta line. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

I don't intend to prove poop to you so I'll just remove that from my posting and you can think or believe whatever you want. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's up to you. Anybody who knows anything about AA Fuelers will tell you they have 4000 HP. Hell, a short block Nascar engine with a carb and running on gas puts out 800 HP, and does it for 500 miles. I've been in and around racing of all types for 50 years. You should know more about a car you say you drive.

I'm just saying.

nearmiss
03-26-2005, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
All this about improved FM is just WOW awesome.

Flying virtual aircraft in Il2 series has always topped everything sim wise, but still a departure from full real power feel. Of course, there isn't much can be done about the lack of G forces. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Psychedelic Drugs is nothing like taking a ride behind 1,000+ HP

Banzai.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

We're looking at a whole lot more power in WW2 aircraft than 1,000 to 1,500 HP. Many of WWII high performance fighter aircraft were supercharged as well.

I still and always have given Oleg credit for doing the best he could to maintain a virtual FM that addressed the needs of a divergent group of users, from neophytes to real pilots.

I never believed the FM were addressed to real fighter pilots of any genre.

This is great news and I think everyone should be full scale "ELATED" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sort of doubt you drove a AA Fuel dragster if you think they have 1000 HP.

They have 4000 HP. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BuzzU you're outta line. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

I don't intend to prove poop to you so I'll just remove that from my posting and you can think or believe whatever you want. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's up to you. Anybody who knows anything about AA Fuelers will tell you they have 4000 HP. Hell, a short block Nascar engine with a carb and running on gas puts out 800 HP, and does it for 500 miles. I've been in and around racing of all types for 50 years. You should know more about a car you say you drive.

I'm just saying. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I amended my last posting...Maybe you should read it.

I've been more than in and around drag racing. I did not drive a car...it was a 220 inch chassis dragster with a 426 Chrysler engine, blown and running as close to 100% nitro-methane as we could run it.

The 4,000 HP is just BS. Most drag racers are full of it, along with exaggerating just about everything from the cost of their cars to the type cam their running. The stories get EVEN bigger as they fill their bellies with Budweisers...

You've been on these boards a long time, as have I. You evidently haven't learned much in the way of etiquette. When you start calling people liars you'd better be able to take heat when you put your foot in your mouth. I don't think you're a bad sort or a smart ***, but you're outta line on this one.

PBNA-Boosher
03-26-2005, 05:46 PM
Oleg will agree, High w00tness levels have been achieved, levels never before thought possible.

BuzzU
03-26-2005, 06:14 PM
Nearmiss,

I don't know what you're saying. Are you saying all engines that were dyno'd are false readings? Plenty of engines pull over 1000 hp on a carb and gasoline.

You don't think a 500+ cubic inch blown Hemi running on 90% nitro can do way more than that? The engines are so tweaked they can't even last a 1/4 mile. They can't dyno a AA Fuel engine, but they can estimate close by what flows through the blower. Not to mention what kind of hp it would take to turn the times they're turning now. My buddy drives a Funny car, and would laugh in your face if you told him the engine only puts out 1000-1500 hp.

I hardly think I put my foot in my mouth. Let's see some pics of your ride.

nearmiss
03-26-2005, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
Nearmiss,

I don't know what you're saying. Are you saying all engines that were dyno'd are false readings? Plenty of engines pull over 1000 hp on a carb and gasoline.

You don't think a 500+ cubic inch blown Hemi running on 90% nitro can do way more than that? The engines are so tweaked they can't even last a 1/4 mile. They can't dyno a AA Fuel engine, but they can estimate close by what flows through the blower. Not to mention what kind of hp it would take to turn the times they're turning now. My buddy drives a Funny car, and would laugh in your face if you told him the engine only puts out 1000-1500 hp.

I hardly think I put my foot in my mouth. Let's see some pics of your ride. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is senseless jabber. I gave you a link, you're the one that made the outrageous comment about horsepower and called me a liar.

There isn't a 2 cycle reciprocating automobile engine that would hold together and expend that kind of horsepower. The rods, the crankshaft, cast iron heads, and cast iron block automobile engine at 4,000 HP, not possible.

Take the links and prove it to yourself, and next time you want to call someone a liar do it through PM in lieu of a public forum. You'd be better serving yourself... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

I gave you a link and if that doesn't satisfy you just type "engine horsepower" into GOOGLE and you'll get a bunch more. If you take the link I gave you and just poke the weight of your car/vehicle and the speed at the end of a quarter mile you'll see it isn't possible.

Here is another link (http://www.bgsoflex.com/roughhp.html), which allows you to enter engine displacement, RPM and compression ratio. You can play with this one through a million iterations and you'll not get to 4,000 hp with any 8 cyl automobile engine. You can allow twice the horsepower for fuel in lieu of gasoline and still not get there.

This is my last response to you on this thread and topic. This has gone far enough between us, since this thread is not about us.

This has turned into a tis so, and tain't thread between us. Time to get out of the school yard and move on.

I'm elated to hear about the new flight models and I'd like to just leave it at that.

BuzzU
03-26-2005, 10:08 PM
They used to say a dragster can never go faster than 200 mph too.

Don Garlits says 5000 hp. You say 1000 hp. Think i'll go with Don.

They were making 1000 hp in 1959. have a look.

http://www.wediditforlove.com/AAFD-history.html

nearmiss
03-26-2005, 10:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
They used to say a dragster can never go faster than 200 mph too.

Don Garlits says 5000 hp. You say 1000 hp. Think i'll go with Don.

They were making 1000 hp in 1959. have a look.

http://www.wediditforlove.com/AAFD-history.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"It's all drag racer BS", the press has always loved imbellishment of everything. That nit in your link said, "7,000 HP". 99% of the guys in drag racing making those kinds of claims pour horsepower out of the can (nitro-methane) and don't know the first thing about what kind of horsepower they're running. You can believe it if you like, but science won't corroborate it.

We could always make more horsepower than we needed. It was tires that was the big problem for years. When Don Garlits got burned bad it was because he was behind the engine. He swore he was through and GoodYear built a tire for him that let him ride in front of the engine. Sad commentary, but if Don hadn't gotten burned you might not be seeing the times and mph you're seeing today in drag racing.

AA/F drivers couldn't sit in front of the engine before, because the tires wouldn't work. We'd have sat on the line and boiled'em down with that engine weight over the tires.

I read that article you linked and I'll say another thing. The guy that wrote it is a know nothing or just badly miss-informed about a great deal more than just a 7,000 horsepower claim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

BuzzU
03-27-2005, 12:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
They used to say a dragster can never go faster than 200 mph too.

Don Garlits says 5000 hp. You say 1000 hp. Think i'll go with Don.

They were making 1000 hp in 1959. have a look.

http://www.wediditforlove.com/AAFD-history.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"It's all drag racer BS", the press has always loved imbellishment of everything. That nit in your link said, "7,000 HP". 99% of the guys in drag racing making those kinds of claims pour horsepower out of the can (nitro-methane) and don't know the first thing about what kind of horsepower they're running. You can believe it if you like, but science won't corroborate it.

We could always make more horsepower than we needed. It was tires that was the big problem for years. When Don Garlits got burned bad it was because he was behind the engine. He swore he was through and GoodYear built a tire for him that let him ride in front of the engine. Sad commentary, but if Don hadn't gotten burned you might not be seeing the times and mph you're seeing today in drag racing.

AA/F drivers couldn't sit in front of the engine before, because the tires wouldn't work. We'd have sat on the line and boiled'em down with that engine weight over the tires.

I read that article you linked and I'll say another thing. The guy that wrote it is a know nothing or just badly miss-informed about a great deal more than just a 7,000 horsepower claim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree 7000 hp is not accurate. However, I also believe 1000 hp isn't accurate either. Cmon! We know a Nascar engine dynos 800 hp. That's a small block on gas. That must get you to thinking that 1000 hp is not right. The Porsche 917 30 dyno'd 1100 hp 25 years ago. You're just not going to get 330 mph+ in the 1/4 mile on a 1000 hp. Let's be realistic here. 1000hp is not that hard to get. Don't Pro Stock engines push over 1500 hp?

Look at it this way. Go back to when a dyno would record hp in dragsters. Look at the times they were doing. Now try and figure how much more hp you'd need to do the times they're doing now?

You're right we got way off topic here, and should stop now. I just couldn't let the statement that modern AA Fuelers are only getting 1000-1500 hp. Sorry.

crazyivan1970
03-27-2005, 11:32 AM
You guys... hi Buzz http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BuzzU
03-27-2005, 11:38 AM
Hi Ivan.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bearcat99
03-27-2005, 03:22 PM
Hey ya Buzz... hows it hangin?? Hows things over at CWOS...

Hristos
03-27-2005, 03:39 PM
So, how many hp does a 1985 Ferrari F1 have ?

BuzzU
03-27-2005, 04:45 PM
Not positive about 85, but 05 is around 900 hp. Pretty small engine running on gas too.

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-28-2005, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristos:
So, how many hp does a 1985 Ferrari F1 have ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this a trick question? I couldnt find any info on 85 version but found this:
Type: 126C V6 TC
Year: 1981-1984
Number of cylinders: 6
Configuration: 120 degree vee, turbo, 24 valves, 2OHC
Weight: 175 kg
Capacity: 1496
Power: 580 bhp (620 bhp)
RPM: 11800 (11500)

http://www.allf1.info/history/australia.php

Capt.LoneRanger
03-28-2005, 05:53 PM
Negative - 1985 was Ferrari 156/85 with ~780PS

marcocomparato
03-29-2005, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I'll wait untill I actually get the chance to log some hours in the new FMs before I pass judgement. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hear what you are saying, however it points to the problem. we are not supposed to think about what we judge about these models. thats what the experts are for. thats what the pilot testing is for.

where the game doesnt model reality was a DECISION by professionals to make a game that was balanced both in realism , playability, multiplayer balancing, and good old fun.

the only problem with that process is the consumer expectations and the miles of data that can conflict with your decisions and be referenced by your consumers.

The new FM is not built to better model reality, but instead to make , in many ways, a better game a combat flight simulator.

marcocomparato
03-30-2005, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
I feel your pain, but, flight simming is an expensive hobby.. The sim makers target the mid to uppper PC's because that is where most of the gamers are.. I think it is selfish of the MINORITY min PC requirments people to try and hold back the ART OF FLIGHT SIMS by using the "My Poor PC" excuse. It is an expensive hobby, keep up, or get out of the way.. And dont grab onto my belt and expect me to stand here with you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just love this statement.

I spend way too much money keeping up with the curve of PC game code and 3d graphics requirements, only buy the best, and upgrade once per year, the major components of my machine like CPU, mobo, and graphics.

it runs me about 1000$US per year to stay competitive and to enjoy the best graphics when they come out. Actually pretty cheap compared to some other hobbies like Snowboarding or Bicycling or RadioControlledFlying just to name a few.

i totally support options to disable new features to include those who dont WANT to spend the money on an upgrade, but dont expect anyone to wait for me and will not be asked to wait on others. things just move too fast in this medium to do that.

go sell your blood plasma, buy the hardware, and quit whining.

WB_Outlaw
03-30-2005, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:

Here is a link for calculating horsepower...

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phphorsepower/horsepower_equation_rotating_horsepower.php

Maybe you should think before you let your mouth outrun your brain.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not a matter of whether or not the tires grip, it's a simple matter of weight ratios...

Maybe you should use the link you posted. A 2100 pound (minimum weight for a Top Fuelie) dragster with a 1/4 mile ET of 4.535 seconds requires 4450 horsepower.

The 500 cubic inches, 90% nitromethane, 54 pounds of boost (~110 inches of mercury), and 8500 rpm barely qualify those monster engines as "automobile" type.


-Outlaw.

LEXX_Luthor
03-30-2005, 07:17 PM
TAGERT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I feel your pain, but, flight simming is an expensive hobby.. The sim makers target the mid to uppper PC's because that is where most of the gamers are.. I think it is selfish of the MINORITY min PC requirments people to try and hold back the ART OF FLIGHT SIMS by using the "My Poor PC" excuse. It is an expensive hobby, keep up, or get out of the way.. And dont grab onto my belt and expect me to stand here with you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Marco:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It runs me about 1000$US per year to stay competitive and to enjoy the best graphics when they come out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I run ATI~9200 and Semperon 3100+, and am totally Happy, although this year I plan to upgrade to ATI~9800Ultra, or whatever they call it in the ads now. I feel like I ride the coattails of the uber computer gaming set. Thanks Fellas~

LOMAC was a disaster--not even the highest uber gaming set could run it. FB was never that way, when it came out I ran it with Trident Integrated motherboard grafix. Of course Trident grafix is the reason I spent so much time in FMB instead of flying FB...and joined the Elite tradition of the FMB Samarai.

nearmiss
03-31-2005, 11:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:

Here is a link for calculating horsepower...

http://www.ajdesigner.com/phphorsepower/horsepower_equation_rotating_horsepower.php

Maybe you should think before you let your mouth outrun your brain.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not a matter of whether or not the tires grip, it's a simple matter of weight ratios...

Maybe you should use the link you posted. A 2100 pound (minimum weight for a Top Fuelie) dragster with a 1/4 mile ET of 4.535 seconds requires 4450 horsepower.

The 500 cubic inches, 90% nitromethane, 54 pounds of boost (~110 inches of mercury), and 8500 rpm barely qualify those monster engines as "automobile" type.


-Outlaw. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Here's a link, take a look http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

CLICK TO SONNY'S SITE (http://www.sonnysracingengines.com/engines.php)

You might also click on your choice of engines (with designated horsepower)as well, and check out the prices http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Flight Simmers think they're hobby is expensive. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WB_Outlaw
04-01-2005, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
Here's a link, take a look http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://www.sonnysracingengines.com/engines.php

You might also click on your choice of engines (with designated horsepower)as well, and check out the prices http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Flight Simmers think they're hobby is expensive. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this link an attempt to show that Top Fuel engines don't produce 4500+hp. If so, it failed. Note that I say 4500+ b/c the number I showed previously is the horsepower that the tires put to the ground. Horsepower at the crank would be MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more.

-Outlaw.

WWMaxGunz
04-01-2005, 02:30 PM
Try looking up and learning the difference between static friction and sliding friction.
Until the tires are rolling in traction, until they catch, it's all wasted power.

Same with clutch plates. I have a nephew who said that on bikes you can't get speed
from tach and gear at high speed because the clutch is slipping some and hey, no way
because when the clutch starts to slip at high power it really lets go and you lose
practically all of it. But it makes a nice "common sense" mental image otherwise.
It only takes a slightly too tight clutch cable adjustment that don't show till yer
at near full power to find that out. Any slippage makes a lot of slippage when you
have a load of excess power behind it.

BuzzU
04-01-2005, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Try looking up and learning the difference between static friction and sliding friction.
Until the tires are rolling in traction, until they catch, it's all wasted power.

Same with clutch plates. I have a nephew who said that on bikes you can't get speed
from tach and gear at high speed because the clutch is slipping some and hey, no way
because when the clutch starts to slip at high power it really lets go and you lose
practically all of it. But it makes a nice "common sense" mental image otherwise.
It only takes a slightly too tight clutch cable adjustment that don't show till yer
at near full power to find that out. Any slippage makes a lot of slippage when you
have a load of excess power behind it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AA Fuelers have very special clutches. They depend on clutch slip to get the power to the ground. Otherwise they'd smoke the tires for the whole 1/4 mile like they used to do in the old days.

WB_Outlaw
04-01-2005, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Try looking up and learning the difference between static friction and sliding friction.
Until the tires are rolling in traction, until they catch, it's all wasted power...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gunz,
Was this a response to my post?

-Outlaw.

Badsight.
04-01-2005, 09:35 PM
the mcgee brothers claimed 5500 Hp for their OHC 4v V8 , this is the mid ninties & they got a 4 second run from their top fueler

now back then most were claiming 4000 - 4500 so thier claim was kind of out their seeing as how their times were only competitive , as in they wernt blowing everyone away

but thats in part to the dev problems of the 4v design

http://www.northernthunder.com/cycle.html

the pushrods still rule supreme , & they are claiming 5K now too

WWMaxGunz
04-02-2005, 03:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Try looking up and learning the difference between static friction and sliding friction.
Until the tires are rolling in traction, until they catch, it's all wasted power...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gunz,
Was this a response to my post?

-Outlaw. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. The limit to speed is how much traction you can get, isn't it? Grind the tires a
bit to heat em up and let em catch then bring the power back on, right? Useta be at least
with hotrods long ago, hot tires grip better and have a bigger contact patch. And there
was them ripple-wall tires just for quarter mile time... booger expensive for amateurs.

How much more power than what's needed to get the speed do they have? Are you saying they
aren't pouring everything on very soon into it? They have MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE! How many
times extra is that?

I like the post about the clutches used... something akin to antiskid braking maybe? It
slips till it catches rather than like... the tires? And once you have static friction,
you can pour on the power right up till breakaway. But that is science and whoever heard
of science improving anything?

quiet_man
04-02-2005, 04:15 AM
what the hell are you doing with ~5000 hp in 4 seconds????????

I know something about the issues to get 500hp on the track, ok you speak about going a straight line for short time, that makes some things easier. But beyond ~300hp (varying by vehicle weight) with a halfway good suspension to prevent bouncing, tire and track are the most important factor to get more then hot air

even with a tire strong enough to handle the energy and soft enough to connect to the track, wouldn't you rip away the track??? :O :O

A ~5000hp vehicle? I would suspect a big truck or tank with steel wheels and big steel spikes, converting everything to nice farmland when they pass http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

how much does this vehicles weight and what track do they use?

quiet_man

BaldieJr
04-02-2005, 09:32 AM
I wish you people would race off to a forum where this crud is appreciated.

BuzzU
04-02-2005, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by quiet_man:
what the hell are you doing with ~5000 hp in 4 seconds????????

I know something about the issues to get 500hp on the track, ok you speak about going a straight line for short time, that makes some things easier. But beyond ~300hp (varying by vehicle weight) with a halfway good suspension to prevent bouncing, tire and track are the most important factor to get more then hot air

even with a tire strong enough to handle the energy and soft enough to connect to the track, wouldn't you rip away the track??? :O :O

A ~5000hp vehicle? I would suspect a big truck or tank with steel wheels and big steel spikes, converting everything to nice farmland when they pass http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

how much does this vehicles weight and what track do they use?

quiet_man <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fast street cars with 600-700 hp do 0-60 in 4.0 seconds. AA Fuelers do the same time for 330 mph. You do the math.

WB_Outlaw
04-02-2005, 11:45 AM
Buzz,
This is a lost cause but I just can't stop!!! It's a battle of wits...


Baldie,
Normally I would, but I can't remember if you're on my list of people to annoy so I'm going to err on the safe side and commence annoying.


Others (not all of course),

If you can dispute this equation....

HP=Weight/(ET/5.825)^3
where ET=1/4 mile elapsed time in seconds and weight is in pounds

then please do so. If not, then don't.

At a more fundamental level, Work = Force*Distance and Power = Work/Unit Time. If a known mass is moved a known distance in a known amount of time, the amount of power that was required can be calculated. End of story. If you don't believe it you can't be helped. If you don't want to understand/learn it, then don't argue about it.

Also, if the only losses you can think of between the crankshaft and the ground are clutch and tire slip, then you're in over your head. You're also below sea level if you can't grasp the concept of applying power over time.


-Outlaw.

nearmiss
04-02-2005, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
Buzz,
This is a lost cause but I just can't stop!!! It's a battle of wits...


Baldie,
Normally I would, but I can't remember if you're on my list of people to annoy so I'm going to err on the safe side and commence annoying.


Others (not all of course),

If you can dispute this equation....

HP=Weight/(ET/5.825)^3
where ET=1/4 mile elapsed time in seconds and weight is in pounds

then please do so. If not, then don't.

At a more fundamental level, Work = Force*Distance and Power = Work/Unit Time. If a known mass is moved a known distance in a known amount of time, the amount of power that was required can be calculated. End of story. If you don't believe it you can't be helped. If you don't want to understand/learn it, then don't argue about it.

Also, if the only losses you can think of between the crankshaft and the ground are clutch and tire slip, then you're in over your head. You're also below sea level if you can't grasp the concept of applying power over time.


-Outlaw. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


As I said in an earlier posting to BuzzU. It was never about the horsepower it was about tires (traction). We could always make enough horsepower. When tires got stickier, grew tall under power...then things began to work.

Tricked out tires was the answer and still is today. If you don't have the tires the horsepower is meaningless.

Drag racing is about getting there before the other feller.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WB_Outlaw
04-02-2005, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
Maybe you should think before you let your mouth outrun your brain.
There are other sites as well...I don't care how you poke your numbers you'll never get close to 4,000 hp or half that on an 8 cyclinder automobile engine supercharged and fueled with nitro-methane.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
The 4,000 HP is just BS. Most drag racers are full of it, along with exaggerating just about everything from the cost of their cars to the type cam their running. The stories get EVEN bigger as they fill their bellies with Budweisers... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
There isn't a 2 cycle reciprocating automobile engine that would hold together and expend that kind of horsepower. The rods, the crankshaft, cast iron heads, and cast iron block automobile engine at 4,000 HP, not possible.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry dude, my bad.

-Outlaw.

BuzzU
04-02-2005, 04:44 PM
Where did 2 cycle engines come into this?

pourshot
04-02-2005, 04:51 PM
Hey outlaw you seem to know your stuff when it comes to drag cars, can you tell me how much down force those huge wings add?

One must assume that the faster you go the more grip you have so more power can be added by the clutchs taking up?

WWMaxGunz
04-02-2005, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:

Also, if the only losses you can think of between the crankshaft and the ground are clutch and tire slip, then you're in over your head.

-Outlaw. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Something of a significant percent?
What was all that of 4500 horse to do the time and really there being MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE.

Yeah I know about some goes to strain the frame and things like that. If it was big losses
there, they'd make stronger frames and drive shafts. Don't try to smoke me. I don't need
to do the physics when cars with less than 4500 horse are turning the time or even close.

I might suggest you attract the attention of Aaron who has a degree in physics, BTW.

WB_Outlaw
04-02-2005, 07:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Something of a significant percent?
What was all that of 4500 horse to do the time and really there being MUCH, MUCH, MUCH MORE.

Yeah I know about some goes to strain the frame and things like that. If it was big losses
there, they'd make stronger frames and drive shafts. Don't try to smoke me. I don't need
to do the physics when cars with less than 4500 horse are turning the time or even close.

I might suggest you attract the attention of Aaron who has a degree in physics, BTW. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it's smoke as you claim, show me where the math is wrong.

For this issue, I'll put my ME degree against his physics degree any day.

BTW, I didn't mean double the horsepower for each MUCH. It's just a figure of speech.

You are correct, the losses deforming the drive shaft and structural components are slight.

By all means, please contact Aaron, maybe he'll have the patience to explain it to you.


-Outlaw.

WB_Outlaw
04-02-2005, 08:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
Hey outlaw you seem to know your stuff when it comes to drag cars, can you tell me how much down force those huge wings add?

One must assume that the faster you go the more grip you have so more power can be added by the clutchs taking up? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe it's around 6000 pounds at speed but don't quote me on that. Yes, increasing the normal force at the rear wheels will allow you to put more power to the ground through the tire. Of course, in general increased lift (the wing is upside down) means increased drag so a good wing design means alot.

-Outlaw.

quiet_man
04-03-2005, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
Fast street cars with 600-700 hp do 0-60 in 4.0 seconds. AA Fuelers do the same time for 330 mph. You do the math. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

330mph and a big wing that explains some things
wow this things are rockets

@WB_Outlaw
did you expect this forum to be full of dragster experts?

At least, thank you for your explenations, I realy thought you can't get more then 1000hp on street, but there is always a solution if you try hard enough
and I bet such a run is quite tricky, no much space and time to correct errors

quiet_man

WWMaxGunz
04-03-2005, 06:29 PM
I can see where the MUCH, etc, extra is needed and should known by dragsters now as
opposed to when I was 20-some are like fighters now compared to WWII.

The big losses are ground and air friction.

I haven't done work and power physics since almost 30 years now. I didn't need to.
I'd be a bit interested in why that one term in the equation is cubed instead of
squared but I already get the feeling it is about acceleration over time, a square
multiplied by a factor again. I can see the shape of the equation and around 6
seconds and less the curve really goes upwards for power.

Is it Patton or Patten with the 7000 hp car that burns 12 gallons in the quarter?
And I thought my old Fury was a guzzler....