PDA

View Full Version : About new FM discussion due to leaked info....



Oleg_Maddox
12-30-2004, 05:43 AM
I think all users should pay attention to this topic, that discussed here

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=2101056752

And then to read my answer with translation what is posted on Russian forum by ROSS_Youss:


What was changed?

1. Completely removed decrement

2. More precise calculations for airflow over the surfaces



3. More precise calculations of airflow burbling

What should you pay attention to?

1. Watch the track once from the outside views, and then from inside the
cockpit to fully appreciate how the aircraft reacts to control input.

2. After turning on the airshow smoke you can see the legendary "jerking the
stick"

3. Hammerhead has never been correctly executed - will have to learn the
proper technique.

4. Wobbling after spin recovery

5. During landing the gyro moment and torque are very obvious

Congratulations - it's like a whole new sim. Completely new sensation of
flight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
================================================== =======

Please keep in mind that these changes are not final and are still very much
a work in progress. Please provide constructive criticism only. [/QUOTE]

==============================



So, gere is my official answer:

In order to stop any discussions, rumors or incorrect interpretations:



1. This is only a small part of the total effort done within the Battle of
Britain timeframes.

2. As the BoB graphic engine is still not ready, this work is currently
being done based on the IL-2 graphic engine.

3. Since what you see is nothing but a leak caused by oversight on part of
two people, please do not take it as an official announcement of something
imminent. Nobody has officially promised anything in any upcoming add-ons!
Moreover. If only a small part of the new work was to be inserted into the
IL-2 series, then:

- You will immediately have to upgrade your computers upon installing the
patch

- We will need to significantly re-tune the performance of EVERY SINGLE PLANE in the simulator. Just think about it. Imagine how much work, resources and money this would take. This will also require a significant amount of testing, and still create an incredible amount of new discussions on the forums about some aircraft being under/over modeled. Don't tell me this won't happen - always has, always will.

User psychology is most often impossible to change. How soon they all forget what I have actually said, and instead misinterpret and misquote me to claim many things I have never said.

In short, even if we do somehow manage to include a PART of this code into the Il-2 series, then believe you me, it won't be soon.


So, what would be the result of the changes listed by Youss:


1.. At speeds above 350 km/h nobody will notice any changes in 99% of the
cases.
2.. At lower speeds changes will be quite apparent, but they won't be so
drastic as to require you to re-learn flying. Everything will be even more
precise and true to real life when speaking about aerodynamics, which in the
end is the law that governs absolutely everything, even including changes of inertia in different modes of flight.
3.. Flying won't become more complicated. It's only complicated to fly in the "trigger" or table-based or arcade flight simulators. I'm mentioning arcade here who those don't see it as such and do not see the physics errors which go against a pilot's nature. It's only easy to fly arcade for those who don't know how an aircraft really flies, or in short physics and a bit of aerodynamics. For example, I see absolutely disastrous errors in physics modeling in some sims, which makes it very difficult for me to fly and _understand_ as an aviation engineer.

Also, the title of posted topic was incorrect. Inertia has always been and is a part of the
IL-2 series. It's just the aerodynamics modeling in BoB is much more complex, and as the result inertia also changes in many situations such as landing and take-off. Virtually nothing changes at higher speeds, and at lower speeds the change is certainly not significant enough to proclaim a revolution.

Just to summarize, the changes seen were one of the result of a large effort - NOT a specific goal accomplished by specifically modeling inertia by itself, as is sometimes done by others.

So if some of you will continue to set a few other sims as examples of inertia modeling, I just can't take them seriously. For some of them them, the relationship is inverted - inertia changes seen in there are hard-coded for certain scenario, and are not a direct result of the airflow modeling or an
overall aerodynamics / flight model. Our sim is just not built this way, and will never be.

This is all I wanted to say. I'd like to request everyone to please not rephrase or misquote me anywhere. Please use the correct terminology, and do not confuse people who may not be familiar with it.

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2004, 06:07 AM
wow

i am REALLY looking foward to seeing Maddox Games release "the Battle of Britain"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
1. This is only a small part of the total effort done within the Battle of
Britain timeframes.

2. As the BoB graphic engine is still not ready, this work is currently
being done based on the IL-2 graphic engine.

3. Since what you see is nothing but a leak caused by oversight on part of
two people, please do not take it as an official announcement of something
imminent. Nobody has officially promised anything in any upcoming add-ons!. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BBB_Hyperion
12-30-2004, 06:57 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif a clearing word before rumors start is much appriciated.

Sticky needed too.

Good work on that fm improvement if the dm gets as detailed we will need surely new pcs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SeaFireLIV
12-30-2004, 07:10 AM
A very wise statement. It may not stop all whines, but you`ve done all that could be done.

Sig.Hirsch
12-30-2004, 07:34 AM
Excellent news , good post Oleg , carry on with your project , we're standing behind it , we'll wait as long as necessary , what is important is the result

S! Good luck 1:C Maddox and Happy new year 2005 with anticipation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bearcat99
12-30-2004, 07:35 AM
Thanks Oleg...very timely and VERY proactive. I have no doubt that you and your staff will do your best as you have done in the past to bring us the best that you can. You and 1C have proven to me time and time again that regardless to what it may seem like to the unititiated or uninformed..... you do the best you can with the data and resources available and the only reaon we have some of the limitations that we do have in the sim is because of the limitations of the average PC. YOU are the engineer and programmer....... so I like most of us here, inspite of the more vocal detractors will trust your judgement.

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

McMurk
12-30-2004, 07:45 AM
Thanks Oleg that is very interesting and BoB will be a feast I do believe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ming

clint-ruin
12-30-2004, 07:53 AM
Thanks for the update Oleg. Wasn't sure at all what was supposed to be shown in those tracks from the babelfish russian > english translation :>

Capt._Tenneal
12-30-2004, 08:05 AM
We will need to significantly re-tune the performance of EVERY SINGLE PLANE in the simulator. Just think about it. Imagine how much work, resources and money this would take. This will also require a significant amount of testing, and still create an incredible amount of new discussions on the forums about some aircraft being under/over modeled. Don't tell me this won't happen - always has, always will.

User psychology is most often impossible to change. How soon they all forget what I have actually said, and instead misinterpret and misquote me to claim many things I have never said.

Gosh ! Oleg knows some of us pretty well indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif And he's right this will happen almost immediately.

Thanks Oleg for making an announcement to put out some fires before they even start. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Please do more of this "pre-emptive strikes" in the future and we can avoid the confusion that happened in past issues (e.g. the whole licensing debate etc.)

p1ngu666
12-30-2004, 10:50 AM
preemptive strike like historic leaders http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

wonder if oleg feels like this to others fm's http://www.tekforums.co.uk:81/style_emoticons/default/slap.gif

now he just needs to reply to my 5b topic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

stef51
12-30-2004, 11:39 AM
"You will immediately have to upgrade your computers upon installing the
patch"


Not to look stupid but what does it mean? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Stephen

Wolf-Strike
12-30-2004, 11:42 AM
Hi oleg.Ok,I agree that inertia is already modeled in IL2 series as thats how we get zoom climbs.But how come a 109K4 can out zoom a P47.Yes inertia is modeled but something is not right and I would think its the weight of the planes adding to the inertia.Any comments?

Since this is for BOB,would it be possible to have short movies to showcase the new FM in addition to BOB update pics?

Thanks,
Dale

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-30-2004, 11:59 AM
thanks for the info Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
i'm looking forward to BoB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DONB3397
12-30-2004, 12:35 PM
Thanks for the information. I think sim addicts generally appreciate this team's attention to FM accuracy...even if it means carrier takeoffs are tougher (and more realistic), and a/c don't automatically recover from spins. Low speeds are where the challenges are.

IMO, every version and patch has moved us a little closer to what it must have been like to fly and fight these birds. That's why I'm here and don't plan to leave any time soon.

Bearcat99
12-30-2004, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stef51:
"You will immediately have to upgrade your computers upon installing the
patch"


Not to look stupid but what does it mean? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Stephen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the whole thread. I believe he meant that if all of the info and calculations for as fully realistic flight as possible were added in we all would have to upgrade our PCs to run the product. As it is now they have made some selective compromises so that we CAN run it. It is still far and away the best thing smoking.

stef51
12-30-2004, 03:28 PM
Hmm, I just hope the upgrade won't be that big. Not to sure what it will require but right now I'm at the limit. Of course, if it happens to be in a few months then I'll start saving money... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stephen

Buster_Dee
12-30-2004, 06:45 PM
Didn't really expect anything for PF (Oleg had talked about the CPU load in even a compromised approach), but boy am I excited about what BoB will offer.

Thanks again Oleg. I guess simmers can't even kill 1C's passion lol.

crazyivan1970
12-30-2004, 10:57 PM
Thanks for clearing this up Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Attention, Other topic is locked and i haven`t decided what to do with those who turned it into a friggin circus. I`m tired and cranky, so i`ll think about it tomorrow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Those are links to the tracks of new FM, some of it at least:

http://forum.sukhoi.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=34233
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=34234
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=34235
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=34236


Link to original post:
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/showthread.php?t=30024

Oleg_Maddox
12-30-2004, 11:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
Hi oleg.Ok,I agree that inertia is already modeled in IL2 series as thats how we get zoom climbs.But how come a 109K4 can out zoom a P47.Yes inertia is modeled but something is not right and I would think its the weight of the planes adding to the inertia.Any comments?

Since this is for BOB,would it be possible to have short movies to showcase the new FM in addition to BOB update pics?

Thanks,
Dale <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Becasue for the zoom climbs we take not just one paprameter (inertion) but way more in a summ.
What you means here isn't the bug. Some other planes could outclimb in zoom climb that plane as well, be sure. However also dependant of altitude where that test is done (one more parameter to tenhs for the evaluation of such things. Don't please think that only inertion is a key for the zoom climb. It will be a key only with equal other paramaters of two planes in test. But you comparing the planes which has absolutely different technical data at all... )

TX-EcoDragon
12-31-2004, 05:40 AM
". . .at lower speeds the change is certainly not significant enough to proclaim a revolution."

Maybe not, but it seems like the implications this has for aerobatics, ground operations, aggresive low speed maneuvering are very nice! If you intend to augment this with a little stronger gyroscopic forces and behaviour due to the mass of the prop then I will really be in aerobatics heaven! My own little fantasy is that one of these days you will do a dedicated acro sim and toss in an Extra, Edge, Sukhoi, and Pitts, for now it's all about the 190. :-D

One thing I wonder about though, it appears that the plane is flying much faster than the speedbar indicates. . . if you use F3 view you will see what I mean. using 1/2 time looks right. This might also explain why the aircraft maintains such a fast descent rate and rotation rate during the spin/spiral. Is this just an artifact of using the PF engine?

Oh and thanks for the intervention Ivan.

CyC_AnD
12-31-2004, 06:19 AM
If flying is SO EASY, it explain why real pilots need to fly x hours on training plane (very easy in flying compare to fighters), x hours on combat plane with standard manouvers, x hours on fighters with combat, and still have accidents during flying, landing, take off...

I see few difficulties in games, that are not realistic and never be (like feeling the plane through your ****). But if somebody will tell me, that guy who never played a sim game, can just sit in a cocpit, start, do some aerobatics and land, then i wont belive you sorry. Just my point of view.

Part of book (translated couse its in polish):
Waclaw Krol: I fought under France sky.

He was starting on simple gliders (small jumps in hill), then flying a glider shooting in a gum (pulled by horses) from hill and manage to have short flies, then they flew on engine plane (with instructor), then on other type of training plane, then on p7, and after that on p11c (which was very capable and easy controls plane, with very good stall characteristic). Everybody can fly a plane, shure, and it is quite easy, shure, if you already know what to do and you are doing it automaticly, like driving a car is easy, couse you dont think about changing gear, you just do it. But until you start doing it automaticly you have to learn this, not just put into a plane and fly and shoot down others...

boathead
12-31-2004, 06:24 AM
Oleg,
I for one, appreciate all of the hard work that everyone has been doing. As a "Casual" user who has become hooked on all of the IL-2 series flight simulations, it has become very apparent that that Oleg and 1C:Maddox Games have far exceeded any other simulation out there. All of us need to "Stop the Whining" and realize that this is a $40 game that is worth every penny, and take this into consideration when we start complaining about minutae! Name one other flight sim. Publisher/programmer that :
1. personally replies to user complaints
2. puts out new planes, FM's, etc., on an almost continual basis.
3. puts up with all the whining
4. doesn't charge extra for every upgrade

Happy New Year to Oleg, and the whole crew at 1C:Maddox games and thanks for a great game.
Paul

Shrike_UK
12-31-2004, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
3.. Flying won't become more complicated. It's only complicated to fly in the "trigger" or table-based or arcade flight simulators. I'm mentioning arcade here who those don't see it as such and do not see the physics errors which go against a pilot's nature. It's only easy to fly arcade for those who don't know how an aircraft really flies, or in short physics and a bit of aerodynamics. For example, I see absolutely disastrous errors in physics modeling in some sims, which makes it very difficult for me to fly and _understand_ as an aviation engineer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

okay, you was not allowed to say CFS series, so i will, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif, yes theres been worse than CFS tho. And yes regarding arcade, im not a bad pilot on full real, but on arcade settings im dead, i cannot understand no stalls/spins, it really messes with my mojo.

Makes me really happy to see a Senior Aeronautical Engineer such as yourself being put to excellent use creating a SIMULATION for everyone to enjoy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Shrike

GT182
12-31-2004, 10:14 AM
Oleg, you do as you see fit with FB, PF and BoB. They are your creations and we as a whole appreciate everything you all have done for us with these sims... I'll not call them games as they are about as real as anyone can get with the FMs and other goodies.

Don't let the whiners get you down. Those of us that might seem to be whining, don't intend our questions to be that way. If there was anything out there that was better than FB and PF, you wouldn't see as many here on the forums or flying your sims as you do now. So to me, you and 1C have done something right, which no one else has come close too so far. Keep up the great work, we're with you 100%. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif ~S!~

TX-EcoDragon
12-31-2004, 04:26 PM
CyC_AnD:

I for one sure would like if we could keep that line of thought out of this thread. I certainly agree with you, and I see that it's fact on a daily basis, nevertheless, not all here are really equiped to make such evaluations, and I think it's best avoided.

I for one think Oleg can build a sim pretty well, and has a feel for how things should and shouldn't be, so for now I will just submit info and hope it gets looked at. In qualitative issues this is just about all that we can do. Otherwise there is fear of bringing out the unsavories who destroy otherwise valuable information.

The simple facts are that physical laws are very repeatable in the real world, and at the same time CPU and code-writing intensive. It isn't an easy vs. hard debate, the facts are that there can always be more computation of things that we know are critical factors in the real world of aviation. In fact, many of these things neither engineers nor pilots understand with complete certainty. That makes simulating it a real challenge. Oleg has the best FM going to date, I am glad that he will continue to add the subtle details to keep it that way. Other smaller sim designers have attempted such things like torque and p-factor, but have created atypical behaviour in the aircraft, and then used this to try to make it's users beleive that if it's "harder it must be more real". It is true that ground operations, takeoff and landing should be "harder" in some aspects, but overall that type of thinking has no place in a sim with the resources to get it right. That hard=more realistic thing is not the way to look at it. Though for now much of what you must do to fly on the limits of aircraft performance is excluded from sims, but that is changing with every patch!

karost
12-31-2004, 10:07 PM
Hi, EcoDragon and Happy New Year http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

for your post:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
One thing I wonder about though, it appears that the plane is flying much faster than the speedbar indicates. . . if you use F3 view you will see what I mean. using 1/2 time looks right. This might also explain why the aircraft maintains such a fast descent rate and rotation rate during the spin/spiral. Is this just an artifact of using the PF engine?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I see that too and I have a question, which one (IL2 original, FB/PF ,or leaked track ) seem close to a real from your experience? and from a difference plane has a difference stall characteristic ?

Regards,

TX-EcoDragon
12-31-2004, 11:33 PM
I would say the 190 A5 in late AEP was probably the best I've ever seen in a sim regarding spin dynamics. As far as that track goes, I heard that the track you see here may not be using all aspects of the FM, the inertia character may be a little exaggerated relative to the other forces. But I am the wrong person to say for sure. I bet Oleg knows though ;-)

There is a little more aerodynamic damping and weathervaning effects in the real world than you see in that track, which result in less pronounced wobble (maybe at half speed the wobble isn't so obvious) but IMHO it looks to me like once this is all finalized you should have the best spin modeling out there and an improvement over what we have now!

Best Wishes for a Happy New Year all!

CyC_AnD
01-01-2005, 06:22 AM
Yes, I know that CPU limitations and all that thing. I know that it my post maybe is thing to other topic. But I'm laughing when ppl usually talk that "harder doesnt mean more realistic" and ending discussion on that sentence. I wont tell this is true (harder=more real), but we shouldnt compare more or less harder to other sims (including PF to BoB), couse it will be more complex right? So it can be more harder then now, but it doesnt mean it will be harder then in real life... For me it isnt so important to have hardest as you can get. I want to see real DM, and feel of the plane soul, feel big difference in every plane (in BoB it wont be much planes, so they should differ much: vide bf vs hurri). Im glad that they doing something in FM department not only graphic. After looking to those tracks, i see some improvements (not looking at zoom climb http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). For example watch landing, tree point landing is more real in those tracks, mass distribution is better then what we had to this time. So im optymistic, Im a tiny part of BoB addon (www.9-1939.pl (http://www.9-1939.pl)), so I have hope for very good sim. This sentence about real=not hard doesnt have sense for me. Everyone has right to have its vote about smthg, I have mine like i wrote. OK im going with my dog for a walk couse im starting to write same things twice :P

carguy_
01-01-2005, 08:15 AM
Hmmm if I can read with understanding this new FM stuff could supposedly be added in PF some time in the future.IMO this should only be done without looking at every single aircraft FM issue and should only be a strict alfa patch so anyone who complains will STFU because it is not eaven secondarily meant for PF.I`d like to check what new FM implementation changes but I certainly think that any more effort about it is a loss of resources.IMO this should server a general purpose of testing it by a larger public and correct given aspects for future BoB game.

Awaiting Ju88 with patiencehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

karost
01-01-2005, 09:32 PM
EcoDragon , Thanks for replay http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"Inertia has always been and is a part of the IL-2 series"

after I understand for what is the Inertia when read in HQ (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=114;t=002652) then remine me when play IL-2 first series when I pull nose up from drive or after recover from stall I see my plane's nose point over horizontal when pull up but I still lose altitude fast from Inertia force and G-force and made me crash the ground .... may be our old friends still remember about this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

seem Inertia very complex with alot of force like airspeed , g-force , weight of plane ( from drive and zoom up) and AOA so if I don't understand in Inertia it's mean I don't understand in FM


the funny thing is I/we was automatic learn to hand on Inertia since I/we play IL-2 but still don't know that was called "Inertia" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


"There is a little more aerodynamic damping and weathervaning effects in the real world than you see in that track"

yes , I agree that EcoDragon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


to fly a real plane is not easy,I think, if we don't understand about aerodynamic how plane can fly and how plane can crash in a difference type. and some part take alot of time to lean and understand it ...

"hard" is not defficult but don't understand is "difficult" .

S!

Wolf-Strike
01-02-2005, 10:34 PM
<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:
Hi oleg.Ok,I agree that inertia is already modeled in IL2 series as thats how we get zoom climbs.But how come a 109K4 can out zoom a P47.Yes inertia is modeled but something is not right and I would think its the weight of the planes adding to the inertia.Any comments?

Since this is for BOB,would it be possible to have short movies to showcase the new FM in addition to BOB update pics?

Thanks,
Dale <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Becasue for the zoom climbs we take not just one paprameter (inertion) but way more in a summ.
What you means here isn't the bug. Some other planes could outclimb in zoom climb that plane as well, be sure. However also dependant of altitude where that test is done (one more parameter to tenhs for the evaluation of such things. Don't please think that only inertion is a key for the zoom climb. It will be a key only with equal other paramaters of two planes in test. But you comparing the planes which has absolutely different technical data at all... ) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Oleg....you know I can never understand your posts until Ive read it like 20 timeshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)
I get it now.

S~~ Oleg and thanks,
Dale

Takata_
01-05-2005, 09:37 AM
It's plain funny how most of the threads about flight modeling always degenerate
into easy/hard stuff mixing gameplay, modelisation, marketing and even political stupidities.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=2101056752
(including this link)


1- One is talking about the gameplay or the difficulty level:

easy gameplay <---vs---> hard gameplay

Oleg answered that an easy or a hard gameplay is not absolutly related to the realism of the flight models (to a certain point). This point is reached when the level of skill needed to fly the simulation game is higher than the skill level needed to fly in real life. Not so hard to understand.


2- One is talking about the flight model realism, or about the physical world and history and the ability of the developpers to modelise that into the sim engine:

fantasy flight model <---vs---> historical flight model

Everybody knows that modeling something is not taking all the possible parameters into account. Modeling something is building a simplification of the reality. This simplification should work as close as possible as the reality to be called a "model".
Complexity is not the key of the model. It's way easier to make a bad complex model than a good simple one.

the main parameters for this modelisation work are:
1) Accuracy of historical/physical datas
3) Skills of models' design team

About those two parameters, if anybody (with the same budget) should be able to get 1) right, 2) is what would make the difference between "fantasy" flight sim and "historical" ones.


3- One is talking about the marketing and the commercial goal of the editor/designer:

Large market <---vs---> small market
and
Ubisoft <---vs---> Maddox Games
...!

And we got such kind of statement:

easy gameplay + fantasy flight sims = large market = large sales <=>
hard gameplay + historical flight sims = small market = small sales

First and following this formula, "Crimson Skies" wilch was an easy/fantasy flight sim made for a market 100's time the size of "IL2/FB" implies that "Crimson skies" sales would have been at least 100's time more those of "IL2/FB". I'm pretty sure it's not the case and that "IL2/FB" has been sold more than "Crimson Skies".

Second, why the developper of this sim is wasting his time making different level of difficulty? why no cockpit mode, no CEM, no accurate gunnery, etc.? Is it only because the ugly editor (Ubisoft) asked for it?

The "Flight sim" market is the whole market and what makes the sales good or not are not linked with how much "easy" or "complex" are the flight models. Every flight sim is supposed to provide easy, medium and hard difficulty settings.

Any game released need a Developper as well as an Editor, those who can't understand that are outside of the world business reality. It's the same with a writter and an Editor (of books), the same with a movie director and his Producer, etc. And the goals of both - Editor/Designer - are the same : the first one is not to loose the money invested into their project.

Talking about Oleg's work without Ubisoft is plain silly. Just imagine Oleg dealing with the shipping of BOB, answering customers about their orders, etc. If it was not Ubisoft, it would have to been someone else to make this job for him. The Editor is taking a big part of the risk too and he's making the project possible... or not. So Ubisoft is part of the same team who makes it possible for you to play IL2/FB/AEP/PF sims, and even if it's not the most "lucrative" game business they got in their catalog.


4- The last one is comming with smart variable to insert into this sim equation of flight models' "complexity": ubicrap french surrenderers, Russian/US/Axis/planes/guns conspiracies, Bush/Commies/Socialist/liberals remarks, Bin Laden/terrorism theories etc.

They are just showing how much low brain complexity they got.


Takata

Recon_609IAP
01-05-2005, 04:49 PM
One aspect that always causing alot of issues is what data the FM's are based on.

ie. the Zero's performance where historical recounts and NACA data all point to a zero that is not the zero of PF.

On one hand we use NACA for one aircraft, but when mentioned toward another, ie. a zero - it's now 'biased'.

We are asked not to question, yet are not given much indication from where this data is from. Someone reports a FM test that doesn't match data, and the response is 'propaganda'.

I for one would like to see these aircraft modelled, as you say above, to a spec that is public.

Tully__
01-06-2005, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CyC_AnD:
Yes, I know that CPU limitations and all that thing. I know that it my post maybe is thing to other topic. But I'm laughing when ppl usually talk that "harder doesnt mean more realistic" and ending discussion on that sentence. I wont tell this is true (harder=more real), but we shouldnt compare more or less harder to other sims (including PF to BoB), couse it will be more complex right?.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More complex calculations inside your PC does not necessarily equal harder to fly. If the simpler calculations we currently have cause unrealistically savage stalls for instance, more complex calculations my in some circumstances make the aircraft much easier to fly.

I know a number of people who've flown and most of them comment that flying an aircraft in normal general aviation circumstances is easier than driving a stick shift (manual transmission) car in moderate traffic. Driving and flying at the extremes may well result in a different comparison, but I'm happy to accept that taking off, flying a straight course to a nearby airfield and landing is easier than getting in a stick shift car and driving 10km in suburban traffic.

Tully__
01-06-2005, 03:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stef51:
"You will immediately have to upgrade your computers upon installing the
patch"


Not to look stupid but what does it mean? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Stephen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It means that this work wasn't intended to be included in FB/AEP/PF. The beta team have been using the current game as a test bed for the BoB flight models as the graphics engine of BoB is not ready yet. Even if the work results in some changes than might be included in FB/AEP/PF at a later date (not soon), expect it to have a large impact on game performance.

Ugly_Kid
01-06-2005, 04:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tully__:
I'm happy to accept that taking off, flying a straight course to a nearby airfield and landing is easier than getting in a stick shift car and driving 10km in suburban traffic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, in 80s after several years of restauration they smashed Msserschmitt Stiftungs Bf-109G-6 on the take-off to a tractor that was parked behind the perimeter fence of the airfield on the side. It was its 50th start, the pilot had no less than couple of thousand hours. Happened quite often to 109 that kind of thing - a small patch of forest on Utti Airfield in Finland is known as "Messerschmitt Corner" as quite a few starts ended there. I think you have better chances of survival with manual shift and that was just taking off part.

Flying is not difficult, to start and finish it is. Flying helicopter is also not difficult but hovering is like balancing an egg on the point of a toothpick. Try full throttle stall on a real Cessna 152, multiply the effect with factor 10 for horsepower and tell me we have realistic edges of envelope while it's easy and more realistic would be just even more easy.

Tully__
01-06-2005, 05:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Yeah, in 80s after several years of restauration they smashed Msserschmitt Stiftungs Bf-109G-6 on the take-off to a tractor that was parked behind the perimeter fence of the airfield on the side. It was its 50th start, the pilot had no less than couple of thousand hours. Happened quite often to 109 that kind of thing ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tully__:
...flying an aircraft in normal general aviation circumstances... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Flying a restored 109 fighter is not normal general aviation circumstances.

karost
01-06-2005, 05:58 AM
"Flying a restored 109 fighter is not normal general aviation circumstances. "

I not agree http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

for normal general aviation circumstances for yung LW pilot 60 yease ago... How many yung LW pilot get killed , injured for take off / landing in 109 ( or other airplane )

"pilot dead in cockpit not looking good..."

S!

gkll
01-06-2005, 10:58 PM
A couple of years or so ago I hypothesized that all the trouble with the FMs changing each patch was due to the complexity of the flight model - far from vector and table based approaches like I heard Warbirds used.

So I really appreciate a post like this one, (as a programmer of sorts who fully understands the difference between empirical and process based models)because it reveals some snippets about how the FM works, and it seems to verify that the issue, in terms of all the patch to patch FM excitement, is what happens to <all> the planes when you make global FM changes, and the difficulty of getting correct performance back for each type by juggling plane parameters to get the right performance. Of course the plus is the glorious feeling of flight with a good FFB stick, and now our new stuff coming for BOB! Excellent post and thank you Oleg.

Looking forward to BOB along with a few friends and a couple of my sons.

Incidentally, and it may be premature (not finished testing yet) but the spit seems to turn a bit better than it did, or maybe the La7 is tuned down, if this is so thanks for listening to all the spit whiners. It does have a lot of wing and it does have low stall speed IRL... anyhow I might just have been flying better tonight.

S!

JG51Beolke
01-07-2005, 06:56 AM
You know, I did notice the Roll looked more realistic.

ku101-Shrike
01-10-2005, 07:15 AM
a while back i flew a real piper plane, on a day flying experience. the thing that hit me most, comparing it to FB was that my plane had only 1 guage for speed and a few levers which im told were mixture and comms, lol what a crate, the actual flying experience was very much like FB though, clouds haze etc.. looked the same, just the ground was more detailed obviously, in fact, its more interesting in FB because you can do aerobatics without scaring anyone. and you dont need to ask permission to takeoff and all that, much more fun IMO.

filiperafaeli
01-12-2005, 11:35 PM
Hello, Everybody!

First congratulations for the excelent game. Simulates very well.

I am real aerobatic pilot and i would like to congratulate Oleg by the flight model. It is comming close the the real. At each new version of the game, there is less and less errors. Congratulations by your perfectionism.

When i started to play online simms, all of them, when i tryied to fly a new one and test him, i aways tried to test the spin. Always ridiculous.

The fist that made it close to correctly was the Flight Unlimited I! An aerobatic simulator. There was a lot of errors there, but the sping was better than another.

Here in il2fb, the spin is really good, 95% correct!!! :-) Going on the way.

Now i would like to ask about two things.

1 - I would like to choose what side i would like to spin, in il2fb, i cant yet.

1 - I would like to make the real Hammerheads stall turn for some people. Didnt see it working in sumulators yet, il2fb will be the first for sure!!

Im saying about western aricrafts because the propeler on clock wise from cockpit.
(level flight, pull stick and pedal to correct gyro, airplane to vertical, neutral stick , speeds drops, when comming to stop in the air, all left rudder, push stick to correcg giro or the heading will decrease, aileron to right side, because if neutral, the airplane rolls anti clock wise from cockpit, when on vetical, release stick to neutral, and full fast opposite rudder to neutral the inertia of the vertical axis. The results was that the left wingtip stoped in the air and the plane made 180 turn.

Actual, we dont have so much control, to make a hammerhead or we need to start to press the rudder very early because we dont have much control during the slow speed stall.

By the way, thanks for read, Oleg team.

Sorry by my bad english!! :-)

Now offtopic, i have a movie of me flyign aerobatics, it is very funny!! :-)

It is a movie of me flying aerobatics in the super decatlhon, look that!!! :-)

http://airhead.hfdd.com/media/acro4_240x180.wmv

Edbert
01-13-2005, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Thanks for the update Oleg. Wasn't sure at all what was supposed to be shown in those tracks from the babelfish russian > english translation :> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What? You did not understand things like this?
__________________________

It looked. It was pleased...
But after output from the corkscrew aircraft somehow unnaturally kolbasit already to neznayu as it it had to kolbasit', but somehow this moment to me was not pleased...
Then glyan'te as aircraft it behaves on the strip! In the controlled drift, yes on Yak-3 into the garden all avtosimy!
+ glyan'te as speed it is dissipated on the released mechanization... 4 that I think - what it to e00km\ch arrived flying on Field... and to vot' it that

It is necessary to yuzat' very, but I think many troubles all these fichi they will not bring (in any case I hope ).Navernoye simply the boundary of the classes of pilots it will become pokontrastneye...

This... if is a possibility, then lay out pliz battle on any tarantass of the type of corsair 43-44 yr against the same corsair. It is desirable to cast a look...
__________________________

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Name one other flight sim. Publisher/programmer that :
1. personally replies to user complaints
2. puts out new planes, FM's, etc., on an almost continual basis.
3. puts up with all the whining
4. doesn't charge extra for every upgrade
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually I can name one although I wont in the interest of decorum. What you should have said is "name one who does all of that for only $160-USD" (the cost of all four boxes). The other title I was thinking of charges that much per year http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

karost
01-16-2005, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
I would say the 190 A5 in late AEP was probably the best I've ever seen in a sim regarding spin dynamics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi EcoDragon,

I agree for dynamics spin in FW-190A5 was improve alot of effect in FM and if flying with full load bomb and fuel for test one G-STALL speed from take off much more fun ( mean not easy to take off ) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif now I like to fly FW-190A5 for offline pilot-career

but one thing that you was give me answer abut landing on softrunway and concrete-runway :

in a real plane if pilot-trainee make not soft landing then he can "feel" impact of action and voice when the gear tuch at runway ?


in this sim I "feel" smoot landing..! but when I made same landing action at "TW" that will become a terrible landing , I can hear a sound of impact and feel air plane spring up to the sky and "impact" runway again..! sound of impact was so terrible , so any real pilots can share me your idea about landing sim. vs Real plan what is look like ?


ok we know this sim don't have wind model I will not talke about cross wind landing but hope for BOB project , they can make wind model same good as spin dynamics

S!