PDA

View Full Version : Sow, a serious aerobatics training tool...



DdT_IcemanFred
06-04-2007, 03:24 AM
Oleg, All,

Thanks again for your fantastic sim!

As I mentioned in my previous posts, I, and a whole bunch of other IL2 pilots, love aerobatics. I can't thank you enough for implementing the Su26, and I CAN NOT WAIT!! to fly it.

Thinking a bit further into the future though,...
Soon, BoB-Sow, will become a sim with an extra dimension, the aerobatic one.
People will start competing, online, at the different real world levels, local as well as international competitions will evolve, people will start qualifying as judges... etc,etc,...

Anyway, I see a host of applications this new sim will bring the aerobatic world.

But, and this gets to a much more serious level, SoW could become a real life training platform, for real competitors. The days when sims were looked at as games are far behind us.
More and more people in the aerobatic world start realizing that, and start using PC based sims as their main training tool.

I am therefore hoping with all my heart that the Su26 will not be the last aerobatic aircraft available in SoW. One of the main reasons why I am hoping this might come as a bit of a surprise to some of you.

Although the Su26 is an incredible machine, it does have one great difference with western aerobatic aircraft: the propellor turns left instead of right. This might seem trivial at first, but it is of massive importance to people who want to use it as an aerobatic training tool. So, it would be great if you could include any medium to high performance right turning aerobatic aircraft in your sim.
Just a few examples could be the so-easy-to-fly Extra series (be it 300LP, 300S, or hey, maybe even a 200??),
the CAP232 (probably one of the most spectacular aerobatic aircraft ever made.), the Zivko Edge540, Votec 322, MX2, Xtemeair3000,.. the choices are ample.

What's more, you have a whole bunch of people (pilots who fly the real aircraft),ready to help you devellop and test the flight model, get plans, measurements, and pictures to make the 3D model, sounds, etc,etc,...

This is a chance the aerobatic community can't miss, let's take it!!

Thank you again,

Kind regards,

Ice

AeroSign
06-04-2007, 03:59 AM
I agree with you a long way.... there are so much to be done for the aerobatic interested sim pilots. I too are looking forward to be able to compete online in aerobatics. However I am not sure I dare to hope it will happen with the upcomming version.... I don't share your opinion on the "serious training tool". You can practice memorising your aresti sequence and turning sides (wind correction). But the basic skils cannot be refined in a simulator IMHO. You need the feel of the plane and a wider view. I use TrackIR in simulation but still it is far from what we get in reality.

I do agree on the right-turning-engine issue. Such aircraft would be nice to have too. Tumbles and accelerated flat spins (just to name a few) are very dependend on the rotation of the engine.

Anyway, it is going to be interesting flying that new Sukhoi!

Regards
/AeroSign

DdT_IcemanFred
06-04-2007, 06:19 AM
Well, just like any sim, BoB will have limitations due to the fact that it is, and stays,a sim. But to state that you cannot practice your maneuvers at al in a sim is a bit over the top. Given the FM is accurate, I see no reason why you would not be able to practice most if not all maneuvers. Of course, you would have to go and train in the real aircraft. But that is also true for full blown commercial flight sims and training devices. You have to learn to take the best from what the sim is simulating accurately, and take with a pinch of salt that what it is not so good at.
I already use Condor (glider sim for the MDM1 fox) to practice for my competitions. And although I fly an Extra 200 in real life, I do notice I take much more benefit from it than just the aresti sequence and box positioning elements. The actual timing, control inputs, aircraft reaction and visual attitude estimation elements are all there...
Of course it works better with a wider field of view, and with real G's and control loading. But we simply don't have those...

AeroSign
06-04-2007, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
I already use Condor (glider sim for the MDM1 fox) to practice for my competitions. And although I fly an Extra 200 in real life, I do notice I take much more benefit from it than just the aresti sequence and box positioning elements. The actual timing, control inputs, aircraft reaction and visual attitude estimation elements are all there...
Of course it works better with a wider field of view, and with real G's and control loading. But we simply don't have those...

What a coincidence, I too use Condor and the Fox for that purpose :-) Maybe you are interested in a little tool to export Aresti drawings (GOLAN gif's) to the Condor cockpit? I made such tool for X-Plane and Condor. It's an Alfa version but it works....

I did not mean to pick on you with my statements. I personally have difficulties using Condors visual references and timings in RL but others may have more success. I do however enjoy (very much actually) playing with my RL sequences in X-Plane and Condor. I practice them, I repeat the manovres for most wind situations and that is really important preparation for me. wheter I gain any practice with the manovre itself, I don't know... but it is still worthwhile doing!

Best regards
/AeroSign

DdT_IcemanFred
06-04-2007, 09:33 AM
Nono,

Of course you are not picking on me, I know man! Al I say, I say in a friendly way.

I would LOVE!!! to try out GOLAN. Please send me a copy, or maybe tell me where I can find it. Thanks,

Ice

Philipscdrw
06-04-2007, 10:31 AM
Maybe a Su-26 version could be included with a right-turning prop?

DdT_IcemanFred
06-04-2007, 10:50 AM
With all respect Philips, but I think Oleg would unscrew your head if he heard you mentioned such unspeakable act of unrealism! Shame!!! Shame on you!! You evil!!! Eeeeevilll!!

;-P http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

TX-EcoDragon
06-04-2007, 01:06 PM
I think we need an Extra 300S for the Germans, an Edge540 for the USA, a CAP for France (don't wanna be accused of having a Russian bias!!! :-D A Pitts S-2A/B/C for advanced dual instruction and/or biplane aficionados would be good too!! See that's the trouble. . .it can get somewhat convoluted whenever a new path is taken. That's why 3rd party individuals are so vital to this sim. They contribute models that would otherwise perhaps not see the light of (virtual) day. I have absolutely no doubt that this would draw many more people to this sim who otherwise write it off as little more than a combat game. (Though I'm not sure I'd take the stance that it's going to be a training tool either)

As always, I'd be more than happy to provide info on these aircraft as well as give my time to perform flight model evaluations and help hone the advanced aerobatic envelope. What I can't do is create a good 3D rendering of these aircraft. I imagine that if someone provided them to Oleg, that would go a long way towards motivating them to spend the time to create flight models, damage models, and otherwise incorporate them into the sim. If there are 3D modelers who can be bribed to work on some of these aircraft, send them here! I'll throw in a few bucks! :-D

VW-IceFire
06-04-2007, 03:06 PM
Whatever the case in other peoples minds I know that even the IL-2 game as it is is a worthy trainer for getting used to flying. I had the opportunity to go flying in a single engine Cessna and my experiences with IL-2 helped me significantly with the real plane. I'm expecting that Storm of War, with a true aerobatic plane, and the increased levels of realism will be very handy in all sorts of different roles.

I don't think anyone can say that it replaces true training or anything of the sort but it can add another layer to the game than already present and you can have some pretty serious aerobatic setups. Actually I think you can right now...just that we lack a true aerobatic display performer although an La-7 might do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
06-04-2007, 06:19 PM
If Oleg wants success among customers -- not just pilots -- he must focus on creating an immersive air war simulation far beyond the standard dogfight shooter gameplay, and also beyond the twist and turn aerobatic gameplay.

Suggestion:: Contact <span class="ev_code_yellow">FAA</span> and ask them to fund the development of a realistic(tm) aerobatic simulator for the enjoyment and after-work gameplay of their pilots. Would FAA fund a Russian developer? I never thought of this angle before.

Do it!


IceFire::
...I know that even the IL-2 game as it is is a worthy trainer...
When the Old Timers score a kill, its a sim. When they get shot down, its just a game.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

DdT_IcemanFred
06-05-2007, 12:57 AM
Eco and Icefire,

Thanks for your interesting replies.
About having a whole series of aerobatic planes available. Well, I think Oleg is a bit too bussy (understandably) to get all of them in in the first release. Although in the long term I do think the number of types will increase, that was not really the point I was trying to make.
What I was trying to say is that we need al least one western type in order to be able to train with right turning propellors, because that is the most vital difference between Russian and western types. If I have to train all my sequences with a left turning prop, it will require me to reverse q lot of the figures, and thus will loose a lot of value as a training tool, although it has an enormous potential to be one.

It is interesting to see I can see the same sort of reactions RL pilots had when IFR trainers (like ELITE) first came out in the 1990ies. They had a sort of mindset that prevented them using the sims to their full potential.
So, as I said before:
-No, of course a sim cannot REPLACE real flying training. It is not meant to do that. Not any sim... Not even the full blown full flight sims professional pilots train on to get their type ratings. But a sim can massively reduce the time and effort required to learn something. It is like greacing a pin before installing it. You can probably get the job done without greace, but boy, does it help!
-What convinces me this can be a training tool is the simple fact that when I use it intensively, it massively improves the quality of my real life aerobatics.

I do think IL2 needs more than just a new aircraft to become a usefull aerobatics sim, though. I do think the FM needs to be reworked in some areas.

Ice

M_Gunz
06-05-2007, 02:12 AM
I'd like to see historic aerobatics planes as well. The 1936 Olympics featured aerobatics
flying as an event and made a special biplane for it that was still being copied in the 90's.

And I've seen film of one famous German WWI Ace trick flying in a special biplane in 1920-21.
He had flown some dangerous scenes around IIRC a glacier given the winds and how close he came
for one award-winning movie then. I watched as he came down over a field not terribly far from
the crowd in the stands and very low then looped and looped again and turned the engine off at
the bottom and looped again. There was a steady breeze, he crabbed the plane over well over
10 feet for forward movement of maybe 2-3 and then touched in a tiny bump and rolled forward
a few feet for what they called a sideways landing.

Now tell me that wouldn't be a fun plane to fly? He had a name for the plane but I forgot.

DdT_IcemanFred
06-05-2007, 02:55 AM
Yes, fun.

But nothing to do with aerobatics. Aerobatics is a precision sport that has as much to do with stunt flying as drag racing has to do with figure skating. Actually aerobatics is the opposite of stunt flying or airshow flying. It is disciplined, controlled, calculated, and most of all safe! Two completely different things, occasionally performed in the same aircraft.
I can think of loads of fun aircraft to fly. But I hope Oleg stays away from MSFSX and X-plane concepts.

AeroSign
06-05-2007, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
... What I can't do is create a good 3D rendering of these aircraft. I imagine that if someone provided them to Oleg, that would go a long way towards motivating them to spend the time to create flight models, damage models, and otherwise incorporate them into the sim. If there are 3D modelers who can be bribed to work on some of these aircraft, send them here! I'll throw in a few bucks! :-D

I spend a lot of time on X-Plane.org and have to say they got really talented and skilled people doing amazing 3D modelling. "They" made an Extra300, CAP232, CAP10, YAK's and Pitt2S. Even the "Super Raven" is modelled for X-Plane. All really nicely modelled airplanes some with cool 3D cockpits too. The possibility to extend the sim with airplanes and plugins without the developers help is one of the main reasons why it has grown as it has. Maybe some of these models can be converted with permission from the authors....

Best regards
/Aero

AeroSign
06-05-2007, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:
...I hope Oleg stays away from MSFSX and X-plane concepts.

I am not sure which concepts you are referring to... but MSFS is already being used for online aerobatics contests; Flight Extreme (http://www.flightxtreme.com/index.htm) though I never really felt its aerobatic FM potential....

X-Plane is also pretty good because it is extensible through plugins and "Plane Maker". But likewise it needs twisting in the FM to be a real aerobatic competitor.

Beeing a total novice with IL2 I still feel its potential and I am definetely looking forward to the Sukhoi. But the competing sims may also become a possibilty for us over time...

Best regards
/Aero

LEXX_Luthor
06-05-2007, 06:23 AM
AeroSign, you may want to try TargetWare. Its an "online" sim but you can practice offline flying yourself -- no AI pilots. The TW forums do, however, have "real life" pilot members to fly with.

So far, every "hardcore" simmer at this webboard who tried TW indicated they prefered the TargetWare flight models, but only briefly, as grafix and other parts remain early in development. They all returned to the lite FM of FB/PF because FM alone can never make an immersive air combat simulator, much less an air warfare simulator. However, for hardcore aerobatic players, TW maybe could work.

TX-EcoDragon
06-05-2007, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

So far, every "hardcore" simmer at this webboard who tried TW indicated they prefered the TargetWare flight models.

Really? I haven't observed the same thing amongst the majority here, rather a vocal few. And while I suppose I think of myself as a "hardcore simmer", I for one don't agree that TW offers much in the FM department other than more extreme (though poorly modeled) torque.

I'm all about realistic FMs and have tried Targetware a few times, most recently when asked by Stiglr to review it. . .but so far my appraisal hasn't changed. It has been a year or two since I've used it last, maybe it's improved.

As for your other comments in the previous post: Luckily, for you and I, the bulk of the effort is shed when 3rd party modelers submit completed renders, and experienced testers refine the FMs and sort out the bugs. My experience in the past with this sim has demonstrated to me that the significant aspects of the effort to bring an aircraft to light are in the data collection, the 3D model construction, and the beta testing. . .none of which have much impact on the rest of the sim development. Of course these 3rd party individuals select what they build, and and we get stuff like the 109Z which has an arguably minimal need to be produced over something that many might actually use, and something that is more "real". I don't see much reason to complain about it though, if that's what someone wanted to submit to Oleg, and it's easy to incorporate. Now if they were being commisioned to build these things, or if it really did take away from other developments then I'd have to complain too. . .but that's not how it is. It's too bad though that arguing against things that aren't something some people would enjoy is paramount over adding feedback in appropriate channels about what they think would add to their enjoyment and immersion of in the sim.

TX-EcoDragon
06-05-2007, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by AeroSign:
I spend a lot of time on X-Plane.org and have to say they got really talented and skilled people doing amazing 3D modelling. "They" made an Extra300, CAP232, CAP10, YAK's and Pitt2S. Even the "Super Raven" is modelled for X-Plane. All really nicely modelled airplanes some with cool 3D cockpits too. The possibility to extend the sim with airplanes and plugins without the developers help is one of the main reasons why it has grown as it has. Maybe some of these models can be converted with permission from the authors....

Best regards
/Aero

Interesting idea, though I've designed a few aircraft within X-Plane as testbeds for virtual windtunnel testing of planned builds, but the modeling method is unique to X-plane. . .at least if they use the plane maker and not an independant 3D rendering program like 3DS Max. The other thing is that most X-Plane models are rather superficial since they are being flown in a sim with a superficial damage model, and have no need to have internal detail that's usually unseen. (Though hopefully we wouldn't focus too much on DM of non-combat aircraft)

AeroSign
06-05-2007, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
Interesting idea, though I've designed a few aircraft within X-Plane as testbeds for virtual windtunnel testing of planned builds, but the modeling method is unique to X-plane. . .at least if they use the plane maker and not an independant 3D rendering program like 3DS Max.

I think the introduction of 3D cockpits in X-Plane demanded some sort of 3D modelling software. I have heard "Blender" mentioned alot on x-plane.org. My understanding is that "Plane Maker" now is the glue to bring the 3D objects together. BUT I am far from an expert on the subject....

Though I wish for Oleg to implement all my aerobatic wishes :-) I still understand that it is not exactly his original goal with the sim. To suggest more aerobatic planes before we actually see his SU-26 may be a bit rude :-)

Best regards
/Aero

LEXX_Luthor
06-05-2007, 03:54 PM
Thanks TX. hehe, I never refer to the vocal few, but only some modest behaving customers here who I conversed with as they experimented with TW. These were not "pilots" that I know of but they enjoyed TargetWare flight model more, but none wished to stay with the larger sim in its unfinished form.

very fast EDIT ... I see what you are saying (not 3rd Party FMs) . I kinda think Oleg's 3D modelling volunteers should select the aircraft they personally want to create if they are allowed to. Its up to Oleg to control the planeset better if he wishes to do so.

LEXX_Luthor
06-05-2007, 07:41 PM
Also, Oleg's sim is, or was, famous for lacking torque. If TargetWare has any torque at all, it has to be an improvement, at least in that area. Not that its critically important, as torque modelling contributes little towards air war simulation and customer immersion, although if customers can sustain interest long enough to get more deeply into a sim, they would appreciate extra "fun" details like torque for the Player Plane. When AI FMs and AI pilots are programmed for torque effects, then we begin to see some small contribution from torque towards a deeply engaging air war simulation.

TX-EcoDragon
06-05-2007, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Also, Oleg's sim is, or was, famous for lacking torque. If TargetWare has any torque at all, it has to be an improvement, at least in that area. Not that its critically important, as torque modelling contributes little towards air war simulation and customer immersion, although if customers can sustain interest long enough to get more deeply into a sim, they would appreciate extra "fun" details like torque for the Player Plane. When AI FMs and AI pilots are programmed for torque effects, then we begin to see some small contribution from torque towards a deeply engaging air war simulation.

Well, as always, it depends on who you ask. I for one agree that this sim needs more in the way of torque, p-factor, adverse yaw, and other such "simulation" aspects. . .but I also remember the fits that people here threw when version 4.0 added the need for people to contend with gyroscopic effects of the prop which were increased to more realistic levels. I must have posted a dozen times here explaining how to deal with that, but it didn't sink in with most people, and the "wobbles" became something of an epidemic according to these folks, and in the end, it was taken out of the sim. It's a bummer. . .I'd rather see more scaling in the difficulty options than a global FM change. If people insist on flying max settings, they should also learn a little about how to actually handle these aircraft. . .after all if we just wanted to run around pointing guns at things we can always load up BF2!

DdT_IcemanFred
06-06-2007, 01:21 AM
About the torque thing.

I think there is unfortunately no easy way to tell if it is realistic in IL2 or not. If I follow my gut feeling, it seems about right. But the only real real way of knowing is to go out there and fly the actual aircraft. So I could only tell you if it is realistic for aircraft in the Extra 200 class (so I know I can expect a bunch more for say, a Su26, but less for say, a CAP10.
Then there is something important a lot of people overlook:
How you as a pilot experience torque and gyro effects, (or any other aerodynamic or inertial effect for that matter) always depends on a greater or lesser extent on the control interface.
Take the FW190-D9. It had a huge engine with tonnes and tonnes of torque. But the aircraft's controls were designed in such a way that the torque felt much easier to deal with than say, a Bf109.
And don't forget that our input devices are very light compared to what you get in the real aircraft. I have CHproducts propedals. When I need to use them during let's say the take off of a Spitfire, I need to make a say, half deflection input if I do it carefully. But that half deflection still feels very light compared to the force I would need to apply in a real Spit. That's why comparisons between what second world war pilots' stories tell about how an aircraft felt, and the actual deflection simulation needed to make the aircraft realistic in a sim, might seem different.
So I do think the aircraft in IL2 feel right.

I installed TargetWare and tried to fly the Su31. Hmmmm, torque is basically uncontrolable... Not very realistic. And it feels in general like the designers didn't get their moments of intertia right anyway. I have the same feeling as I do in X-plane. Oversensitivity.

Then I installed FSX and tried the Extra 300. Not bad insome respects, but clearly suffering from the inherent quirks of FSX's FM.
For example: I trimmed the Extra for 0 G's, flew a vertical upline, released the stick, and it gave me a strong positive G input... Wrong!!!
Then I rolled it upside down, and for some really weird reason, it gave me -1G !!! stickfree. Veryvery strange.
Then the stalls/spins. The incipient spin entry works ok , but it goes all weird as soon as it devellops. I believe this must have something to do with the fact that sims like FSX and X-plane only simulate angles of attack under about 20 degrees. Wich results in the aircraft making a strange oscillating motion during the spin (a sort of ON/OFF lift feeling).Then the recovery is totally unrealistic, lacking any sort of inertia. What a weird FM!! It must be over 20 years old, and I don't have the feeling they've changed it much.

Ice

DdT_IcemanFred
06-06-2007, 09:32 AM
Eco,

I tried out the Eagle II today and was positively impressed!I think that, apart from Real Air's SF260, this is one of the few aircraft in FSX that has a good enough FM to do serious aeros with. Although the stall turn and spin recovery are still a bit weird.

Thank you very much for pointing that one out.

Ice

LEXX_Luthor
06-06-2007, 10:12 AM
Yeah TX, Oleg's 4.0 New FM was the first time in FB that the flight models really needed some working elevator trim to ease flying for the pilot. Much of this "hardcore" Online crowd here were up in arms about having to learn elevator trim for the first time since Oleg disabled it in earlier flight models. They just got snotty when they were told they could either learn elevator trim, or use "easy" settings. You don't tell a hardcore FB Online gamer he needs "easy" settings if he's not willing to learn to fly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

There was P-38 a pilot account, possibly during one of Romanian oil raaiids, from a P-38 pilot who got caught low and slow by Fw-190s. The pilot entered a slow climbing turn and looked back to see full deflection on all Fw rudders as they tried to follow his move, and one by one the Fw's flopped over and fell from sight. That's one reason why torque (or p/gyro whatever) won't add much to any combat sim unless the AI aircraft and AI pilots are programmed for it also. Now, if a sim is humoid vs humoid gameplay only, just the Player Plane having torque would be "okay" as every plane in a competitvive dogfight -- or aerobatic -- gaming environment is a Player Plane, but it would have to be Pay-To-Play sim for the tiny number of players.

TX-EcoDragon
06-06-2007, 06:05 PM
Good point Lexx. . .if the AI gets totally different treatment than a player controlled aircraft that simply is no fun at all!

AI gunnery really bugs me because they all seem to fly with wonderwoman view on, so the fact that their pilot couldn't actually see you maneuvering doesn't seem to hurt his ability to track you and fire at you. . gah. . I hate that!


Originally posted by DdT_IcemanFred:

How you as a pilot experience torque and gyro effects, (or any other aerodynamic or inertial effect for that matter) always depends on a greater or lesser extent on the control interface.

Ice

Exactly. . .and that's what I was after when I commented that people shouldn't take those Cpt. Brown stick settings as gospel. The settings people were thinking were realistic according to Eric Brown were nothing near realistic unless you input only minimal stick throws. The simple fact that the X-45 he was using only moved a few inches from center, rather than about 12 inches for a typical aircraft he was used to made him feel that it was all too sensitive. He tried to get a given response for a given stick offset, rather than re-calibrating his hand to account for the reduced overall stick travel. As such, Cpt. Brown's settings gave me a 60 degree per second maximum rate of roll at 325 kmh in the Fw190A5 . . .clearly a very wrong value. . .but that's what Cpt. Brown's settings would give with full stick inputs. Maybe that was correct for moving the stick say, an inch in the real airplane AND an inch on the X-45, but still technically the wrong way to evaluate a sim. A person needs to be versed in sims AND how they relate to the real world counterparts if they are to give useful information, especially when talking about actual control feel. . .which of course, is almost a misnomer in PC sims.

Things are perhaps more confused in this sim because the stick travel corresponds to virtual pilot forces on the stick, rather than actual stick travel. As such moving the stick fully only "asks" your virtual pilot to pull as hard as he can, rather than actually moving the stick fully in that direction.

As far as control authority relative to torque, that's another big issue as you point out. A good example of such things is the higher powered Pitts. It's short coupled, light, and yet has tons of power and big prop out front. As one would expect it makes loads of torque and p-factor, but it also has exceptionally powerful controls, and fairly light stick forces. It's easy to hold the required right rudder on climbout for example, and not realize how much rudder you are holding. Put your feet on the floor though, and the airplane will do a tight skidding yaw to the left. . .it's quite amazing actually the first time you try that. . .so I agree that lots of torque and lots of p-factor don't invariably mean that it takes lots of muscle to oppose those forces. The P-51 is a much longer aircraft, and has less powerful controls but still a lot of p-factor and torque. . .but because of the heavier controls the perception of torque is stronger. Again. . .you must sort of calibrate your hands, feet, and mind to compare sims to the real thing. I usually do this by seeing how the aircraft responds with full control inputs simply because this is the best way I know to eliminate the issues of joystick feel, and to see if responses are correct at the only known position I can manage in the sim. . full travel. This is also how I do evaluations of torque on takeoff. comparing how fast you can dd the throttle in the real world to how fast you can in the sim gives an idea of the severity of the torque effects in the sim relative to the rudder authority. That's not quantitative information, but qualitative. . .which what "control feel" is all about.

Of course things like roll inertia, roll rate, pitch rate, pitch stability, responsiveness etc are also pretty obvious once you make the appropriate calibration change to factor in the joystick and rudder pedals so I think that it's still possible to make reasonable assumptions about what is appropriate for an aircraft, particularly when pilot comparisons to types I do know are made.

msalama
06-07-2007, 02:16 PM
Well I just tried TW again after a couple of years, and frankly speaking wasn't too impressed anymore.

The planes have torque, sure, but what's wrong with the overall flight modelling? None of the birds I tried (Hurri Mk.IIc, Cr.42, Storch, Spit Mk.V) seemingly had any gyro and / or prop effects modelled - and they also felt very flimsy, i.e. there's probably something off w/ the MOI values and/or calculations. So no matter what Stiglr et. al. say the claims of its vast superiority over IL-2 do frankly speaking seem a bit exaggerated to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


So far, every "hardcore" simmer at this webboard who tried TW indicated they prefered the TargetWare flight models

Well I'm not HC but still felt that way a couple of years ago... Not anymore, however, 1946 being the great overall product that it is IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Truth be telt it actually felt a bit arcadeish to me now - apart from the abovementioned torque which the TW birds seem to have plenty of, realistic or not...

LEXX_Luthor
06-07-2007, 05:36 PM
Well, these are the FB/PF simmers *I* conversed with while they experimented with TW. Its a bit late now to tell us they were wrong at the time -- last year or so. That and Oleg's FM has been slowly improving with 4.0 New FM and flight models with useful elevator trim.

By "hardcore" we mean long time customers of Oleg Maddox who are honest and polite webboard poasters -- that last section of the definition excludes those who boast of being more "realistic" and accusing others of "wanting arcade" (as well as accusing others of wanting to cheat online with elevator trim and/or aircraft mods).

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I too long ago Psycho Internally co-associated TagertWare and Stiglr as one (1) object. It takes some time to realize life does not have to be this way.

msalama
06-07-2007, 10:00 PM
Its a bit late now to tell us they were wrong at the time -- last year or so.

I'm not saying anyone's wrong, because they're of course entitled to their opinions. It's just that *I* don't feel it's that good anymore because of those missing engine and prop effects, etc.


Oleg's FM has been slowly improving with 4.0 New FM and flight models with useful elevator trim.

Indeed, or in other words I'd say that IL-2's current _overall_ flight modelling is more complete and thus better. Individual AC FM errors there might be, true, but that's not what I'm talking about now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

H3ll, I'm not sure if this (http://koti.welho.com/msalama/Fooling_around_in_a_Rata_10-03-2007.ntrk) would be even possible in TW as a matter of fact - just compare it to some old Soviet propaganda films available at Youtube (I think that's where I've seen them) featuring the critter and I'm sure you'll notice a certain similarity in the manouvers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

What I'm talking about starts at about a minute into the track or so. Use a flyby view for maximum effect.

LEXX_Luthor
06-08-2007, 02:51 AM
mslama::
I'm not saying anyone's wrong, because they're of course entitled to their opinions.
Aussom! Wellcome to the Boards. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It is just something AeroSign in looking for aerobatic gameplay might find as an alternative as have some other pilots for whatever their own reasons.

TX-EcoDragon
06-09-2007, 12:37 AM
So. . .I'm ready for some formation aerobatics. . .anyone else feel the need??

M_Gunz
06-09-2007, 01:01 AM
Getting pitch trim right has always mattered in this series.
As of 4.0 it is the use of rudder that has been the big difference.

Before that the rudder was almost an auxiliary and perhaps EcoDragon remembers the thread
about the stalls always going into spins?

Compare aerobatics in 3.04 to 4.08.

M_Gunz
06-10-2007, 09:10 AM
BTW was anyone here part of the team that made that video on the 2nd DVD of 1946?

They did some amazing things!

And stunts may not seem like much but consider that combat is not a set of predefined maneuvers.
I appreciate the stunt fliers and what they do too. It does take skill and some quick thinking.
That does not in any way detract from precision aerobatic flying any more than a good jam
musician compares to a high quality orchestra musician.

TX-EcoDragon
06-10-2007, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
BTW was anyone here part of the team that made that video on the 2nd DVD of 1946?

Yes, I flew as reserve pilot for the VHVT for a few years.

Team page here:
http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/index.htm

FW_Solo
06-11-2007, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
Yes, I flew as reserve pilot for the VHVT for a few years.


Hi
VHVT fly now?

TX-EcoDragon
06-13-2007, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by FW_Solo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
Yes, I flew as reserve pilot for the VHVT for a few years.


Hi
VHVT fly now? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but my schedule never worked very well with the rest of the team, with them being in Italy and me being in the US. They needed more pilots, and apparently were unable to find appropriate ones in a similar time zone so I was taken in as the only non-Italian, but the time zoe issue was a major one. This meant that I had to be home in the middle of the day to fly with them, which I couldn't manage for very long.