PDA

View Full Version : BoB and real pilot testing



majnos64
06-03-2007, 10:37 AM
I know some planes from WW2 are flyable. Is there any chance or plan Oleg is going to tweak BoB according to the best Spit and Bf-109 pilots? Or there won't be any feedback I think this point is one of the most important in future simulators.

WhtBoy
06-03-2007, 10:55 AM
What useful information could they possibly have for 1C? The current flying warbirds don't match wartime specs and the pilots who actually flew in the war have only subjective information that is over 65 years old. Unless, of course, they were test pilots and actually have the performance data they collected during their time in the cockpit. Then they would be a gold mine. Other than that, though, they are not much help when it comes to the technical part of putting together a sim.

--Outlaw

Antoninus
06-03-2007, 10:58 AM
They especially included a modern stunt plane in BOB(Su-26) to get better feedback from real life pilots.

majnos64
06-04-2007, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by WhtBoy:
What useful information could they possibly have for 1C? The current flying warbirds don't match wartime specs and the pilots who actually flew in the war have only subjective information that is over 65 years old. Unless, of course, they were test pilots and actually have the performance data they collected during their time in the cockpit. Then they would be a gold mine. Other than that, though, they are not much help when it comes to the technical part of putting together a sim.

--Outlaw

There are some people flying reconstructed machines. I didn't mean wartime aces but flying experts. For Bf and Spit there should be no problem to ask some living pilots.

FritzGryphon
06-04-2007, 01:58 AM
For qualitative things, like control feel, it might be useful to ask people flying authentic examples. I'm sure MG interviewed plenty of people for the IL-2 series.

But you'd think that, for performance figures, there is plenty of existing information. Besides, you couldn't convince a modern warbird pilot to waste their time doing empirical performance testing. They wouldn't be willing to test the extents of the performance, either, due to safety and engine life restrictions.

Skoshi Tiger
06-04-2007, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by WhtBoy:
What useful information could they possibly have for 1C? The current flying warbirds don't match wartime specs and the pilots who actually flew in the war have only subjective information that is over 65 years old. --Outlaw

Subjective. Ummm! The war time pilots were trained professionals. I don't think you understand how hard it was to become a pilot during the war.

Unlike the film pearl harbour, they didn't just throw any yokel they could find into the cockpit. Flying was a becoming a highly refined science so they only chose a very select group of yokels to put behind the controls of the fighter aircraft. These guys were the cream of the crop!

Remember than many of the alied aces ended up their war as flight instructors (or at least served a part of their time as one- hence the lack of 200 kill aces on the winning side)

If there was anyone I was going to get subjective information from , these would be the guys I'ld be getting it from.

Philipscdrw
06-04-2007, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Antoninus:
They especially included a modern stunt plane in BOB(Su-26) to get better feedback from real life pilots.

And also because some of 1C's developers designed that aircraft when they worked for Sukhoi, and because there's (apparently) a demand for online aerobatics competitions...

TX-EcoDragon
06-04-2007, 01:20 PM
Many people on the internet will tell you that if there is a pilot who has experience in an aircraft that has 200 pounds less weight in a 7,000lb airplane that it's not going to be useful information. I for one think that's absurd. Sure there are some differences, but there is much more that's similar.

I've flown many aircraft that can be configured in many ways, and yes, weight additions, and weight shift make a noticeable difference, but not one that an experienced pilot can't relate to or even predict, and not one that erases the unique character of the particular aircraft. You will still be able to describe, or at least recognize the way that aircraft behaves, even in a loading condition that you haven't experienced before. The basics of control feel and aircraft handling will still be relatively constant to provide useful information. In the sim the more subtle things like the way pitch response changes with a CG shift are not felt by most people, and yet they can still differentiate between a P-51 and a Fw190. I wouldn't throw away any individual person's information, sure there will be inaccuracies, but taken together with all the other data you can get, it only stands to enhance the final product. Oleg and 1C do know this, and I think the OP need not wonder about this as in the past they have done this, and in the future will continue to take this sort of information into consideration.

FritzGryphon
06-06-2007, 07:05 PM
The key is to get a variety of vague pilot accounts for a plane that all contradict. The best ones use useless non-specific adjectives like 'good', 'poor', 'stable', 'unstable', 'fast', 'slow', 'manueverable' and 'not manueverable'. It also helps if the accounts are made by people who've only flown a few planes, and only from their own nation.

Then, choose the one account that best suits your bias.

Then, take one line from that account and present it out of context, to rationalize your own personal preference for the flight model.

Support with performance figures from prototypes, de-rated captured machines, and airshow warbirds.

msalama
06-09-2007, 03:51 AM
...all of which of course then forces us to conclude that the FM debates will never cease no matter what http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Aaron_GT
06-09-2007, 02:32 PM
The key is to get a variety of vague pilot accounts for a plane that all contradict. The best ones use useless non-specific adjectives like 'good', 'poor', 'stable', 'unstable', 'fast', 'slow', 'manueverable' and 'not manueverable'. It also helps if the accounts are made by people who've only flown a few planes, and only from their own nation.

Indeed - I have the book that brings together the results from the joint fighter conference. Lots of different opinions. Some trends emerge, but sometimes one report will praise a plane and another damn it... and these are often well trained expert pilots, but there are all sorts of different preferences and expectations involved.The JFC is perhaps the most objective account there is, apart from actual test figures.

VW-IceFire
06-09-2007, 09:11 PM
I don't know how much further some of this stuff can be taken. Certainly at the edges of the flight envelope we can get more detail but I've been flying recently and the current version of the sim does an excellent job of "flight". I'm not saying I've flown a Spitfire...if that were my job then I'd never need to fly the sim again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm sure they will consult pilots...but I don't think we'll see a huge leap in the flight modeling. Just more refined and more detailed...especially for weather. Landing with a proper crosswind and moving windsock is where we should be going http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
06-09-2007, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
The key is to get a variety of vague pilot accounts for a plane that all contradict. The best ones use useless non-specific adjectives like 'good', 'poor', 'stable', 'unstable', 'fast', 'slow', 'manueverable' and 'not manueverable'. It also helps if the accounts are made by people who've only flown a few planes, and only from their own nation.

Then, choose the one account that best suits your bias.

Then, take one line from that account and present it out of context, to rationalize your own personal preference for the flight model.

Support with performance figures from prototypes, de-rated captured machines, and airshow warbirds.

You've described perhaps Level Two Agenda Pursuit!

For Level Three you need to drag in bits of text or charts that you then use to magnify your
side and to chip away at the other side as possible. It takes more setup but has more flex.

And it's always good to have a "choir" for support.

|CoB|_Spectre
06-09-2007, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by WhtBoy:
What useful information could they possibly have for 1C? The current flying warbirds don't match wartime specs and the pilots who actually flew in the war have only subjective information that is over 65 years old. Unless, of course, they were test pilots and actually have the performance data they collected during their time in the cockpit. Then they would be a gold mine. Other than that, though, they are not much help when it comes to the technical part of putting together a sim.

--Outlaw

Consider Eric Brown's credentials as one of the most prolific allied test pilots. His published information is legendary, yet apparently carries no weight regarding such things as the pilot's view from the Fw-190. Obviously he reports so much more than something that constrained, but so much for test pilot info, eh? Even test pilot reports contain impressions and subjective information not readily discernible from raw data. Many of the reports by pilots are quickly discarded as being unreliable due to the passage of time some 65 years later, but much of their writings were within a few short years after their experience, but that fact seems too often overlooked as well.