PDA

View Full Version : Realistic flight models versus flight planning



Darknest
12-28-2004, 01:17 PM
With this latest talk about problems getting F4Us and F6Fs off the CVs with the 3.03 patch, it made me realize that the most unrealistic thing about flying in IL2 and PF (and indeed all the latest sims released) is lack of information that was available to pilots of the period.

A pilot coming out of basic training knows that fuel starvation and improper weight-and-balance are more likely to knock you out of the air than the enemy.

But, with these more realistic models, our flight briefings don't give us cruise altitude, speed, or range to target. We don't even have the same information available to REAL pilots to make our fuel decisions.

Then there's the big stink about taking off from the CVs. The ordnance screen doesn't tell us how much our aircraft weigh as we add things. This was information that was available to real pilots BEFORE they even started their engines. None of this trial-and-error **** everyone is doing now. With real risks and real airplanes, pilots had real data: given weight, headwind, and density altitude, a pilot could determine how much runway he needed. If it was too much for what he had, he pulled stuff off.

As it is now, the briefings and ordnance screen are grossly "undermodeled" for the realistic flight models we have now. I don't even know which carrier I start on, much less how much my airplane weighs (and subsequently its takeoff distance -- not that that's given either).

Slapping ordnance on and taking off is for an arcade sim on the Playstation. Is there no one else who's poking Oleg to add realism to the ordnance and pre-flight briefing screens?

How is it that everyone wants to add more airplanes, but not want any information about how they fly or what situation they're flying them in?

Darknest
12-28-2004, 01:17 PM
With this latest talk about problems getting F4Us and F6Fs off the CVs with the 3.03 patch, it made me realize that the most unrealistic thing about flying in IL2 and PF (and indeed all the latest sims released) is lack of information that was available to pilots of the period.

A pilot coming out of basic training knows that fuel starvation and improper weight-and-balance are more likely to knock you out of the air than the enemy.

But, with these more realistic models, our flight briefings don't give us cruise altitude, speed, or range to target. We don't even have the same information available to REAL pilots to make our fuel decisions.

Then there's the big stink about taking off from the CVs. The ordnance screen doesn't tell us how much our aircraft weigh as we add things. This was information that was available to real pilots BEFORE they even started their engines. None of this trial-and-error **** everyone is doing now. With real risks and real airplanes, pilots had real data: given weight, headwind, and density altitude, a pilot could determine how much runway he needed. If it was too much for what he had, he pulled stuff off.

As it is now, the briefings and ordnance screen are grossly "undermodeled" for the realistic flight models we have now. I don't even know which carrier I start on, much less how much my airplane weighs (and subsequently its takeoff distance -- not that that's given either).

Slapping ordnance on and taking off is for an arcade sim on the Playstation. Is there no one else who's poking Oleg to add realism to the ordnance and pre-flight briefing screens?

How is it that everyone wants to add more airplanes, but not want any information about how they fly or what situation they're flying them in?

Bearcat99
12-28-2004, 01:47 PM
To tell you the truth most of us just look it up. Besides.. I could be mistaken but I dont think there were too many palne launchings from static carriers. I can get off the deck with a fully loaded Corsair if the ship is underway. Granted I have to throttle up and hit flaps and trim almost at the end of the deck....and raise my landing gear as SOON as i get off the deck but I do get up and away... just about every time. Thats with 3 bombs and AP rockets. The briefings have a lot to do with the mission builders. I think Olegs original idea was to give us a few but to give us the tools to make our own and write the briefs however we want them. But I think I get what you are sayuing now.... are you saying that it would be nice to have the weights of the ordinance...(at least the rockets.... we know how much a 500lb bomb weighs.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) and the optimum take off and landing speeds? I find that just by looking at historical data I can get a pretty good idea.

WildeSau
12-28-2004, 01:49 PM
I totally agree with you - there could be more done in this direction.

Perhaps we gone see such things in Battle of Britain since I don't think it's gone make it in PF.

WildeSau

james_ander
12-28-2004, 01:58 PM
Why not do it yourself in the Mission Builder?

Writing a briefing is very easy.

You can also make a balck and white film with text for even more detail. Make it like a recon film.

tsisqua
12-28-2004, 03:18 PM
What about wind direction and speed? I wouldn't think of starting a cross-country flight without checking on this, and then computing my heading.

However, we have so many real world things modelled into this game that I am able to truly able to enjoy it as it is. Sometimes, there is so much to think about that it is pretty overwhelming for a PC game. Something like this probably won't (as was mentioned already) make it into PF, but there is still BOB coming.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifTsisqua

Latico
12-28-2004, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tsisqua:
What about wind direction and speed? I wouldn't think of starting a cross-country flight without checking on this, and then computing my heading.

However, we have so many real world things modelled into this game that I am able to truly able to enjoy it as it is. Sometimes, there is so much to think about that it is pretty overwhelming for a PC game. Something like this probably won't (as was mentioned already) make it into PF, but there is still BOB coming.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifTsisqua <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure we can set wind in the FMB. Could be wrong though. I'll have to check it.

TX-EcoDragon
12-28-2004, 04:46 PM
we cant but if you could then we could just set a 30 kt wind across the deck of the carriers and call it a day. . . not as cool as making them move in df, but far better than tweaking fms until it is easier to get the aircraft of the deck, and making them no longer represent the aircraft.

reisen52
12-28-2004, 05:22 PM
Maybe you should try using the CVN-68 "Nimitz" if you want to takeoff from a stopped carrier as you might make it if you start from the ramp. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There is a reason the Essex Class ships turned into the wind to launch aircraft. You get the forward speed of the ships 33kts plus any wind velocity that is available.

Check the F4U's takeoff run distance by wind speed & loadout.

http://www.avhistory.org/bear257Images/f4lo.jpg

BTW the tip to get up to speed then drop the flaps is just so much BS. The F4U was designed to takeoff with fully deployed flaps. You want to deploy the flaps, crank in right trim in the rudder, up trim into the elavator & rev the engine before releasing the brakes. To get the shorter of the listed takoff runs you need to step up the power to WEP before you release the brakes.

When the load got too heavy for the available deck space a pair of JATO bottles could be added to the aft section of the fuselage.

Zeke

F4U_Flyer
12-28-2004, 08:37 PM
Don't know if you noticed but all of the speed charts in that doc are in mph. I seem to remember a discussion on this topic. It would be nice if the speedbar setting could be chosen in the settings. Another thing is note the takeoff distance in calm conditions , how long is an escort carrier? Also nice chart , what year is it from?

joeap
12-29-2004, 04:45 AM
Actually you can swtich the speedbar to display knots or mph as well as feet. Bind a key in the controls.

reisen52
12-29-2004, 08:47 AM
USS GAMBIER BAY (CVE 73) was 512 feet 3 inches long. It carried 18 FM-2 Grumman fighters & 12 TBM-1C Grumman torpedo bombers.

The copy I have is faint but the blank form itself is a September 1944 revision, so it would be some point after that.

Zeke

Fliger747
12-29-2004, 02:44 PM
Thanks for the chart, glad to see one that shows performance at max weights, rather than the usual maximum figure for each factor, though all are not possible all at one time!

The cockpit airspeed indicator (in the game) is in MPH for the F4U. It is much more accurate (if you can read it) than the speed bar, especially for approach and landing.

reisen52
12-29-2004, 08:23 PM
&gt;&gt;&gt;Thanks for the chart&lt;&lt;&lt;

No problem 747, Excuse me but now I have to get back to the dark side. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

http://www.avhistory.org/bear257Images/BEAR.jpg

Zeke

x__CRASH__x
12-29-2004, 08:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Darknest:
... a bunch of stuff ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want data like that... I mean you REALLY REALLY want data like that, then I suggest this. You do the leg work. You provide all the data to Oleg. If you need avenues to Oleg, I know all kinds of people who speak to Oleg all the time. We can get that stuff to him. But I know that Oleg will direct attention to anything so labor intensive such as this. This project will require a ton of research. That is why YOU should do the research for him.

You would also have to do this for ALL aircraft. Why should just a few have this feature? All aircraft should have it. You could start with PF aircraft, but he may want it for all FB+AEP+PF aircraft. You never know.

Be prepared for disappointment. I wouldn't even approch Oleg with this subject until you have the data along with good references. Once you have it, give it to him and hope for a positive response. If you ask him first if he wants you to do it, you may never hear from him.

Attack it with this mindset: Take away all reasons for Oleg NOT to add it to the game. Do as much as you possibly can, and organize it as professionaly as you can.

Good Luck

F4U_Flyer
12-29-2004, 09:26 PM
Seems to me the best way to solve this problem is to allow for wind or moving carriers on mp. This would be much easier , ( maybe ) , then changing fm's to suit this on all the planes. If the corsair or any other plane is that far off from reality then by all means gripe but for this problem , i think the mp change would be the route to take. Whatch think?

tttiger
12-29-2004, 10:49 PM
Great chart! The difference in takeoff distance at different wind speeds is very dramatic.

I agree completely this info should have been part of the sim.

But I disagree (as usual) with Crash (you really need to start wearing a helmet, Bubba http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

Ever heard of Third-Party stuff? No need to beg and plead with St. Oleg. Just do it!

Compile the charts and put 'em up at Netwings as a Utility.

I guarantee I'll download 'em and use 'em.

ttt

x__CRASH__x
12-29-2004, 10:53 PM
Thats not a disagreement, it's just a different way to approach the same objective. He said he wanted all of that added into the game.

3rd party utility would be a quicker way to make it available to all.

tttiger
12-29-2004, 11:06 PM
Noooooooooooooooo...We can't agree on anything! The whole feud will be kaput! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh, and Bearcat, yeah, sure somethings like a 500 pound bomb are obvious.

Pop quiz...you can't look this up:

How much does a Tiny Tim Rocket weigh?

Honk! Time's up!

1,300 pounds. Each! And they only come in pairs!

Yes, I looked it up because I couldn't figure out why I could never get off a CV with Tiny Tims and HVARs. In fact, it takes almost a full concrete runway.

I think having the correct data and the limitations handy would add more sim to the sim.

ttt

Darknest
12-30-2004, 01:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
.If you want data like that... I mean you REALLY REALLY want data like that, then I suggest this. You do the leg work. You provide all the data to Oleg.
Good Luck <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem is *I* don't have much of the information: For example, runway lengths. Only the designer of the game knows what length they modeled for the semi-fictional airports. Even if I looked up the aircraft performance specs, I still have no idea what the GAME runway length is. I don't even know which runway I'm taking off from! This information is missing from the briefing and background documentation.

Without this information, we will forever be complaining about flight models when our heavily loaded ride fails to get airborne before the end of the runway. We don't know if it's even possible, but real pilots did, before they even started their engines.

Aircraft carrier lengths. I could look that up, but only the game designer knows where my aicraft starts on the deck. There's a significant difference between starting the takeoff roll forward of the aft elevator, and from the tip of the stern. That information is not available in the briefing.

The [dynamic campaign] briefing doesn't even mention which class CV I'm on, so even if I had a Jane's All the World's Fighting Ships, I couldn't tell if it was possible to get off the deck.

How fast is the CV moving? That determines my headwind and takeoff distance. This is not in the [dynamic campaign] briefing, and most builders neglect mentioning it.

For everything else (e.g. fuel burn), I assumed the designers have that information encoded into the flight model and merely make it visible in the aircraft description screen or ordnance screens. If they don't have that information, then no claim to authenticity can be made can there?

Flight altitude and cruise speed is ENCODED in the mission. The AI flys it, so it's there, somewhere. Why not make it visible on the briefing screen? This will allow me to tell if I need external tanks or not. Real pilots had this information and it affects flight and payload decisions.

x__CRASH__x
12-30-2004, 01:25 AM
I think I have a solution... possibly...

If you can find the wingspan of any particular aircraft, you can use it to measure. Go to the FMB and place that aircraft on the runway of next to the carrier you want to measure.

Why not? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

For the rest, well, yeah, you've got a point. Thats a hell of a tall order.

Darknest
12-30-2004, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
I think I have a solution... possibly...

If you can find the wingspan of any particular aircraft, you can use it to measure. Go to the FMB and place that aircraft on the runway of next to the carrier you want to measure.

Why not? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

For the rest, well, yeah, you've got a point. Thats a hell of a tall order. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're fairly new to flight sims aren't you?

The features I am requesting have been present in sims going back 20 YEARS (1984 to Microprose's Stealth Fighter and LucasArt's Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe).

The Ordnance and Pre-flight briefing screens on PF (and many flight sims recently released) are primitive compared to simulations released almost a decade ago now. And that's the WRONG way to go given that the flight-model fidelity has been INCREASING. We now NEED that information to fly these more realistic models.

What technical reason is prohibiting the display of takeoff weight, or the cruise altitude information? How is that a "tall order?" This information was available on sims that ran on machines clocked &lt; 33MHz, with 640K or RAM, with 10MB of hard-drive space.

You're trying to make my requests sound irrational and unfeasable, but many of the features have been done over a DECADE ago with more primitive technology.