PDA

View Full Version : The unique WING PROFILE not included in flight model...The truth...Nightmare...



Hptm.Keule
05-08-2006, 11:25 AM
Hello all brave pilots!

There is one VERY IMPORTANT question about this, and the future (BOB) simulator!
Here it is:
Does the unique wing profile of the each aircraft is implemented in his behaviour in the air - or each aircraft have one equal to others aircrafts flight model?
We all knou how many different wing profiles have for example Bf 109 and P 51! They should not be under one flight model!

<span class="ev_code_RED">Unique wing profile = unique flight!</span>
I know that the 3D model of the wing in this simulator is not equal to the profile of the original wing (look for example at the angular 3D wing profile of IL2 series)...So?
<span class="ev_code_RED">Does the UNIQUE ORIGINAL WING PROFILE IS IMPLEMENTED IN BEHAVIOUR OF THE UNIQUE AIRCRAFT?</span>
If the answer is no - this is not aircraft simulator, but just another aircraft shooter game like many, many others!

HERE IS THE OFFICIAL SIDE OF THIS DISPUTE:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Does the idividual wing profile, affects in any way the individual fligft of the individual aircraft. Does the speciffic wing profile restricts in any way the common flight model implemented at the individual aircraft.</span>


I become upset bcose we have such plentitude and diversification of aircrafts - but it seems thay have eaqual behaviour.
Russians pilots in the war had one joke: Thay sayd: "With good motor, even simple door can take off".

Its a joke!
My oppinion:
Only the wings make the aircraft - aircraft, not the motor - for example look at the gliders - they have no motor - but they have precise wings.

Only the different wing makes the aircaft diferrrent aircraft.
SO MANY YEARS I HAVE BELIVED THAT I FLY REAL WARBIRDS IN THIS SIMULATOR BUT IT SEEMS IL2 = AMAZZZZZZZZING SHOOTER! DAMN!

I hope that BOB will be "The King of the Sims"
Oleg I wish to You success!

Friendly Regards!

JG4_Helofly
05-08-2006, 11:37 AM
I agree with you, but come down a bit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now, we have probably only one wing profile. This would explane the dive which is nearly the same for all planes and of course other manoeuvres.

Let's hope we will have proper aerodynamic features for each aircraft.
Now it's a bit like mario karthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If you are in a dive no aircraft can realy fly away only after the Vmax of the slower aircraft is reached.

Right aerodynamics are a must for bob. Without we will still have planes which have same flight behaviours.

AKA_TAGERT
05-08-2006, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
Hello all brave pilots! Brave? Last time I check, no one has ever died in a PC game flight simulator.


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
There is one VERY IMPORTANT question about this, and the future (BOB) simulator!
Here it is:
Does the unique wing profile of the each aircraft is implemented in his behaviour in the air - or each aircraft have one equal to others aircrafts flight model?
We all knou how many different wing profiles have for example Bf 109 and P 51! The *parameters* of the wing profiles are known, different wings, different *parameters*. Now as for the flaps, I think there are still some bugs in the P38 fowler flap simulation, in that they dont work as well as they should. But to answer your question, yes, there are different wing profiles.


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
They should not be under one flight model! WRONG, a single 6DOF FM, is more than enough to simulate these planes. The math does not change from plane to plane, just the *parameters* change.


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
<span class="ev_code_RED">Unique wing profile = unique flight!</span>
I know that the 3D model of the wing in this simulator is not equal to the profile of the original wing (look for example at the angular 3D wing profile of IL2 series)...So?
<span class="ev_code_RED">Does the UNIQUE ORIGINAL WING PROFILE IS IMPLEMENTED IN BEHAVIOUR OF THE UNIQUE AIRCRAFT?</span>
If the answer is no - this is not aircraft simulator, but just another aircraft shooter game like many, many others! The 3D model in no way shape or form contributes to the math of the FM. That is to say I could plug in the *parameters* of a P51 into a B29 and the B29 would fly like a P51


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
Oleg are you realy the Wizzard or or just another good illusionist hungry for the money of the mob?!
Please state! I see the problem here, you did not read the side of the box, it clearly states the min age is 12+ years old, Therefore, please wait a few more years before flying this sim, let alone commenting on it.


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
Friendly Regards! Likewise Im sure.

mrsiCkstar
05-08-2006, 12:10 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif I love it!

HelSqnProtos
05-08-2006, 12:50 PM
S~!

.............. I like your request, but your delivery could be little smoother.

More will be known after this week and the presentation of B.O.B at E3. There is even talk of regular development updates again. But given the Russian secrecy I wouldn't hold out much hope for that one. As for the money grab............. a lot of pilots not happy with the latest addon and the distribution system used. I think they got the message.

Jaws2002
05-08-2006, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
it clearly states the min age is 12+ years old, Therefore, please wait a few more years before flying this sim, let alone commenting on it.




http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/pullmeouthereowned.jpg

BadA1m
05-08-2006, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
Hello all brave pilots!

There is one VERY IMPORTANT question about this, and the future (BOB) simulator!
Here it is:
Does the unique wing profile of the each aircraft is implemented in his behaviour in the air - or each aircraft have one equal to others aircrafts flight model?
We all knou how many different wing profiles have for example Bf 109 and P 51! They should not be under one flight model!

<span class="ev_code_RED">Unique wing profile = unique flight!</span>
I know that the 3D model of the wing in this simulator is not equal to the profile of the original wing (look for example at the angular 3D wing profile of IL2 series)...So?
<span class="ev_code_RED">Does the UNIQUE ORIGINAL WING PROFILE IS IMPLEMENTED IN BEHAVIOUR OF THE UNIQUE AIRCRAFT?</span>
If the answer is no - this is not aircraft simulator, but just another aircraft shooter game like many, many others!

Oleg are you realy the Wizzard or or just another good illusionist hungry for the money of the mob?!
Please state!

Friendly Regards!

Are you freakin' kidding?

JG4_Helofly
05-08-2006, 03:44 PM
How is the aerodynamic modelled in IL2? Same wings or same drag maybe?

After many years of playing IL2 I think that there must be some aerodynamic features which are the same for all planes. The aircrafts in this game are very similare to each other especialy in accelerations or other flight behaviours.

The way like Hptm.Keule wrote the discussion was certainly not reasonable, but the question is interessting.

crazyivan1970
05-08-2006, 04:04 PM
Interesting request, but bad presentation

danjama
05-08-2006, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by mrsiCkstar:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif I love it!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
05-08-2006, 05:47 PM
Remember...its a game...its run on your home PC...all it does is calculate some math and move your 3D representation of an aircraft in the appropriate direction. There are no wings, no wing profiles, nothing...there is just a physics engine striving to represent the effects.

There is no fluid dynamics...so we're not caculating the effects of air moving past the aircraft. Why even talk about 3D objects...makes no sense...they have no bearing on the flight model.

Yes its a game. But don't mistake....go play Blazing Angels...thats a true arcade like fun shooter game experience....this is so much more in terms of simulating reality. But its not reality and you've confused it.

NonWonderDog
05-08-2006, 07:27 PM
You ever noticed how some planes stall more abruptly than others?

There's your answer.

AKA_TAGERT
05-08-2006, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Remember...its a game...its run on your home PC...all it does is calculate some math and move your 3D representation of an aircraft in the appropriate direction. There are no wings, no wing profiles, nothing...there is just a physics engine striving to represent the effects.

There is no fluid dynamics...so we're not caculating the effects of air moving past the aircraft. Why even talk about 3D objects...makes no sense...they have no bearing on the flight model.

Yes its a game. But don't mistake....go play Blazing Angels...thats a true arcade like fun shooter game experience....this is so much more in terms of simulating reality. But its not reality and you've confused it. Exactally

Buzzsaw-
05-08-2006, 10:47 PM
Salute

Be sure that different aerofoil shapes on different aircraft do perform differently in the IL-2 flight model. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

However, the real question is how accurately those game aerofoils are modelled, when compared to the real thing on the real aircraft.

For example, some aircraft display very abrupt stall and departure characteristics, when compared to the historical flight reports or descriptions in pilot manuals.

Also the low speed behaviour of all slat equipped aircraft, (109's, LaGG-3's, La5/7) in particular these aircraft's ability to maintain level wing attitude even in the absence of any lift, and clear sink, is another question which seriously needs to be looked at.

Hptm.Keule
05-09-2006, 01:37 AM
You are right!
Oleg sorry for the bad language - Yesterday I have drinked too much cofee - it makes me too agresive! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Thanks to all!
Sorry again!
Regards!

JG4_Helofly
05-09-2006, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

Be sure that different aerofoil shapes on different aircraft do perform differently in the IL-2 flight model. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

However, the real question is how accurately those game aerofoils are modelled, when compared to the real thing on the real aircraft.

For example, some aircraft display very abrupt stall and departure characteristics, when compared to the historical flight reports or descriptions in pilot manuals.

Also the low speed behaviour of all slat equipped aircraft, (109's, LaGG-3's, La5/7) in particular these aircraft's ability to maintain level wing attitude even in the absence of any lift, and clear sink, is another question which seriously needs to be looked at.

True, but some stall behaviours of some aircrafts are strange. For exemple the gentil fw 190 stall.

I don't know how precise the aerodynamics are in il2 but I think we can say for sure that many of these must be similare for each aircraft in the game. The reason is propably the old Il2 engine and the number of aircrafts we have.
For exemple: Dive acceleration; flight behaviours ( steep climb for fw 190,...) and other things which are nearly the same for all planes.

This is a great sim, but it become old and the precision drops cause of to many aircrafts.

Let's hope that BoB will modell more individual flight caracteristics with more precise and inidvidual aerodynamics.

WWMaxGunz
05-09-2006, 02:39 AM
It is incredible how people who can't be bothered to go as far as learn as much as a ground
school manual let alone aero engineering can still come up with the whizzers they do.

As Tagert pointed out, the 3D models do not affect the FM. There is no air over the surfaces
modelled down to how it flows. There can't be. Yet there is the effect of AOA, lift, drag,
propwash and to some degree that will go higher with the BoB models the mass as well. Each
wing does have a lift curve and from behaviour when damaged I will guess maybe more than one
or that one becomes changed. And it only takes one to make a professionally credible FM,
one per wing.

Yet every time some git has a problem they invent their own homecooked explanation and then
pawn it off as truth with sweet FA BS in the way of actual backup and say 'arcade'. It's
another mental 3 year old having an "I hate you" tantrum and looking for someplace to kick.

Hey Buzzsaw, absence of lift? Is the plane stopped or the AOA beyond 45 degrees? In stall
there is lift in proportion to speed and the coefficient of lift curve. Finns flew 109-G
full power at 120-130kph level with nose 30 degrees high, the backside of the level power
curve and did it in clean configuration! No flaps in clean!

Not only is Oleg an aero engineer and pilot who knows his trade very well but we also have
pro pilots and even an aerobatics team member that come by and post how much closer the FM
is than anything else they have for PC. They post the things not so real and as yet none
of those is a killer issue. The worst two were the need to hold planes banked, which was
fixed, and the uncontrollable stalls which was fixed as you can hold the plane stalled by
rudder and you could not.

And yet we get the equivalent of kids who want to play cards with less than half a deck.

I am VERY GLAD that Oleg does not cater to them. My opportunity to learn is not diminished
to match the expectations of such as those. THANK YOU OLEG!

karost
05-09-2006, 07:46 AM
4-5 years we still have only "one" good game [FB release] in our hard drive
and I/we learned about good and bad in this FM ,

if there is no new competitor come , so this is still only one
a monopoly enjoyment that we have and funs

but education here from many good friends share a good
knowledge of true "FM" to each other , made me/us "know"

the meaning of "flight sim...!" and "game sim...$" what is look like http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

AKA_TAGERT
05-09-2006, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It is incredible how people who can't be bothered to go as far as learn as much as a ground
school manual let alone aero engineering can still come up with the whizzers they do.

As Tagert pointed out, the 3D models do not affect the FM. There is no air over the surfaces
modelled down to how it flows. There can't be. Yet there is the effect of AOA, lift, drag,
propwash and to some degree that will go higher with the BoB models the mass as well. Each
wing does have a lift curve and from behaviour when damaged I will guess maybe more than one
or that one becomes changed. And it only takes one to make a professionally credible FM,
one per wing.

Yet every time some git has a problem they invent their own homecooked explanation and then
pawn it off as truth with sweet FA BS in the way of actual backup and say 'arcade'. It's
another mental 3 year old having an "I hate you" tantrum and looking for someplace to kick.

Hey Buzzsaw, absence of lift? Is the plane stopped or the AOA beyond 45 degrees? In stall
there is lift in proportion to speed and the coefficient of lift curve. Finns flew 109-G
full power at 120-130kph level with nose 30 degrees high, the backside of the level power
curve and did it in clean configuration! No flaps in clean!

Not only is Oleg an aero engineer and pilot who knows his trade very well but we also have
pro pilots and even an aerobatics team member that come by and post how much closer the FM
is than anything else they have for PC. They post the things not so real and as yet none
of those is a killer issue. The worst two were the need to hold planes banked, which was
fixed, and the uncontrollable stalls which was fixed as you can hold the plane stalled by
rudder and you could not.

And yet we get the equivalent of kids who want to play cards with less than half a deck.

I am VERY GLAD that Oleg does not cater to them. My opportunity to learn is not diminished
to match the expectations of such as those. THANK YOU OLEG! Agreed 100%!
Git.. I like that! Sounds better than smacktard! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hptm.Keule
05-09-2006, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It is incredible how people who can't be bothered to go as far as learn as much as a ground
school manual let alone aero engineering can still come up with the whizzers they do.

As Tagert pointed out, the 3D models do not affect the FM. There is no air over the surfaces
modelled down to how it flows. There can't be. Yet there is the effect of AOA, lift, drag,
propwash and to some degree that will go higher with the BoB models the mass as well. Each
wing does have a lift curve and from behaviour when damaged I will guess maybe more than one
or that one becomes changed. And it only takes one to make a professionally credible FM,
one per wing.

Yet every time some git has a problem they invent their own homecooked explanation and then
pawn it off as truth with sweet FA BS in the way of actual backup and say 'arcade'. It's
another mental 3 year old having an "I hate you" tantrum and looking for someplace to kick.

Hey Buzzsaw, absence of lift? Is the plane stopped or the AOA beyond 45 degrees? In stall
there is lift in proportion to speed and the coefficient of lift curve. Finns flew 109-G
full power at 120-130kph level with nose 30 degrees high, the backside of the level power
curve and did it in clean configuration! No flaps in clean!

Not only is Oleg an aero engineer and pilot who knows his trade very well but we also have
pro pilots and even an aerobatics team member that come by and post how much closer the FM
is than anything else they have for PC. They post the things not so real and as yet none
of those is a killer issue. The worst two were the need to hold planes banked, which was
fixed, and the uncontrollable stalls which was fixed as you can hold the plane stalled by
rudder and you could not.

And yet we get the equivalent of kids who want to play cards with less than half a deck.

I am VERY GLAD that Oleg does not cater to them. My opportunity to learn is not diminished
to match the expectations of such as those. THANK YOU OLEG! Agreed 100%!
Git.. I like that! Sounds better than smacktard! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I become upset bcose we have such plentitude and diversification of aircrafts - but it seems thay have eaquar behaviour.
Russians pilots in the war had one joke: Thay sayd: "With good motor, even simple door can take off".

Its a joke!
My oppinion:
Only the wings make the aircraft - aircraft not the motor - for example look at the gliders - they have no motor - but they have precise wings.

Only the different wing makes the aircaft diferrrent aircraft.
SO MANY YEARS I HAVE BELIVED THAT I FLY REAL WARBIRDS IN THIS SIMULATOR BUT IT SEEMS IL2 = AMAZZZZZZZZING SHOOTER! DAMN!

I hope that BOB will be "The King of the Sims"
Oleg I wish to You success!
Regards

mazexx
05-09-2006, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Remember...its a game...its run on your home PC...all it does is calculate some math and move your 3D representation of an aircraft in the appropriate direction. There are no wings, no wing profiles, nothing...there is just a physics engine striving to represent the effects.

There is no fluid dynamics...so we're not caculating the effects of air moving past the aircraft. Why even talk about 3D objects...makes no sense...they have no bearing on the flight model.

Yes its a game. But don't mistake....go play Blazing Angels...thats a true arcade like fun shooter game experience....this is so much more in terms of simulating reality. But its not reality and you've confused it.

You stole my answer! Thanks for sparing me the time writing it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

joeap
05-09-2006, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:


I become upset bcose we have such plentitude and diversification of aircrafts - but it seems thay have eaquar behaviour.
Russians pilots in the war had one joke: Thay sayd: "With good motor, even simple door can take off".

Its a joke!
My oppinion:
Only the wings make the aircraft - aircraft not the motor - for example look at the gliders - they have no motor - but they have precise wings.

Only the different wing makes the aircaft diferrrent aircraft.
SO MANY YEARS I HAVE BELIVED THAT I FLY REAL WARBIRDS IN THIS SIMULATOR BUT IT SEEMS IL2 = AMAZZZZZZZZING SHOOTER! DAMN!

I hope that BOB will be "The King of the Sims"
Oleg I wish to You success!
Regards

Geez didn't you read one word posted here, this is not a professional airline sim but it is not an "arcade shooter" either. You won't get real warbirds in BoB either.

Oh and airline sims don't have real airliners. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

triad773
05-09-2006, 02:29 PM
Yeah I love this sim too. Deep and challenging (to me,) I finally over time accumulated just about every input device except HOTAS for the game. And every time I get a new device (like force feedback joystick, or TrackIR, or pedals) I have to go back and relearn some of the basics with the new device. But it never gets old, that's for sure. HOTAS is next, and I will have tio go back and relearn some again.

Have to ask myself what's it REALLY feel like to be flying a P-40 (which I remind myself is a 60+ year old plane by now,) and have it stall when I only am up 500' AGL? I'm sure I'd poop my pants in the process. So I'd rather enjoy the experience sitting in front of my computer, safe in the knowledge that if I crack up on landing, at least I won't take out this side of the house http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Yes the FM is important to me too. But I think I have a basic understanding of the sim's limitations: and thats ok. Input devices are bound to influence how you feel about the FM: but there are only so many devices to make it only so real. If you've got everything you can get to make it as real as possible, there still will be a gap between what you are experiencing and the real thing. I'd be interested in seeing an aircraft like the B-26 modelled: its (new at the time)laminar flow wing was quite troublesom at first- a real challenge to fly.

~S~ to all

Triad

SaQSoN
05-09-2006, 02:30 PM
I become upset bcose we have such plentitude and diversification of aircrafts - but it seems thay have eaquar behaviour.
Ever thought of the following:

The game simulates flight within same planet, with the same atmosphere, under the same physical conditions and laws. So, it is obvious and natural, that the same mathematical model is being used to calculate flight physics for ALL modelled planes. It would be odd, if that wouldn't be so.
As for the wing profiles, they are obviously modelled as different for various aircraft, otherwise, all planes with the same wing load and the same power load would climb with the same vertical speed and stall at the same speed and have same turn radius. Which, to my knowlege, isn't present in the game.

Only the wings make the aircraft - aircraft not the motor
This phrase tells enough about your knowlege in the field of aerodynamics and aircaft design. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Believe me, there a HUGE number of variables beyound the wing profile, that affect flight characteristics.
So, finally, before making any statments go and study some physics, mathematics and programming first, as someone already suggested here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif This would make you look less foolish. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG4_Helofly
05-09-2006, 03:15 PM
Just a question about aerodynamics.
We already discussed the dive behaviours of havy planes and planes with low drag which seems to be worse than they should. These planes don't have there real advantage.
Now, what is the missing part in the calculation? Mass, drag, ...? Which of these points could be simplified in calculation in the game, or how much simplified?

Only a simple question no whining or such a thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-09-2006, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
I become upset bcose we have such plentitude and diversification of aircrafts - but it seems thay have eaquar behaviour. Thus disproving the long held notion that ignorance is bliss.. in that your anything but blissful.


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
Russians pilots in the war had one joke: Thay sayd: "With good motor, even simple door can take off".

Its a joke! As was the saying about the F4 Phantom, with enough thrust even a brick will fly. But what does either of those have to do with your statements and/or questions.. Ill tell you, they have nothing to do with them


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
My oppinion:
Only the wings make the aircraft - aircraft not the motor - for example look at the gliders - they have no motor - but they have precise wings.

Only the different wing makes the aircaft diferrrent aircraft. In light of your ignorace about flight simulations in general, this simulation specifically, and WWII aircraft your opinion does not hold much water with me.


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
SO MANY YEARS I HAVE BELIVED THAT I FLY REAL WARBIRDS IN THIS SIMULATOR BUT IT SEEMS IL2 = AMAZZZZZZZZING SHOOTER! DAMN! Don€t feel bad, in my first 8 years of life I use to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, so, like I pointed out, min requirements for this simulation is 12+, give it a few more years before you play it let alone comment on it, thank you.


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
I hope that BOB will be "The King of the Sims"
Oleg I wish to You success!
Regards It will take more than a king to beat out the current king, that being the IL2 series, but if there is anyone who can do it, it would be Oleg.

WWMaxGunz
05-09-2006, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
I become upset bcose we have such plentitude and diversification of aircrafts - but it seems thay have eaquar behaviour.

What? Equal behaviour? Huh?

Sure. They all fly and they all tend to turn in the direction you bank them in.
Go slower and lose lift. Rudders work the same basic way but no way the same.
Ditto for other control surfaces. Things common to these planes are the same in general
but not in details that I can see.

Maybe you should go into details according to your own expertise?


Russians pilots in the war had one joke: Thay sayd: "With good motor, even simple door can take off".

Its a joke!
My oppinion:
Only the wings make the aircraft - aircraft not the motor - for example look at the gliders - they have no motor - but they have precise wings.

Only the different wing makes the aircaft diferrrent aircraft.
SO MANY YEARS I HAVE BELIVED THAT I FLY REAL WARBIRDS IN THIS SIMULATOR BUT IT SEEMS IL2 = AMAZZZZZZZZING SHOOTER! DAMN!

Whoever burst your bubble didn't leave you much of a clue.
Sim cannot equal full real behaviour down to the last things does not mean "shooter".



I hope that BOB will be "The King of the Sims"
Oleg I wish to You success!
Regards

Make that Combat Flight Sims for PC. Still won't be perfect with total reality. PC is
not that good. Neither is supercomputer for that matter. What you want will take a time
machine and somehow stick you in the war itself. You can die happy knowing it is all real.

Till then you're a troll.

Hptm.Keule
05-09-2006, 11:06 PM
Blah Blah Blah..... All I cah here is: "How You dare to the challenge The mighty Oleg - Our God!"
I agree with You - Its a GAME but No Sim!

About my competence in aircrft matters - You can be sure they are enough to build my own aircraft!
Before 12 Years I was constructing my own flying models without motor - I know enough for phisics and aerodinamics.
With no wing profile implemented in flight model - Il2 = First class SHOOTER! Even Oleg
knows this! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
So be objective plz.

AKA_TAGERT
05-09-2006, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
Blah Blah Blah..... All I cah here is: "How You dare to the challenge The mighty Oleg - Our God!"
I agree with You - Its a GAME but No Sim!

About my competence in aircrft matters - You can be sure they are enough to build my own aircraft!
Before 12 Years I was constructing my own flying models without motor - I know enough for phisics and aerodinamics.
With no wing profile implemented in flight model - Il2 = First class SHOOTER! Even Oleg
knows this! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
So be objective plz. Objective? Ok, you first

WTE_Galway
05-09-2006, 11:38 PM
actually what he is talking about could probably done in X-plane where basically it does take your 3D model and try and make it fly

but as is sensibly pointed out above .. the IL2 flight modelling is totally separate from the 3D models and its hard to see how it could be done differently in a combat sim at this point in time

Hptm.Keule
05-09-2006, 11:43 PM
Even kids know that different profiles like these below, should have different behaviour in the air.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/wing_profiles.jpg

For now all we know is that the original wing profiles are not inscripted in flight model.

Unique profiles should have to be implemented - than this game will become simulator.
I am waiting that happy day, and I know that Oleg will do it some day.

AKA_TAGERT
05-09-2006, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
Even kids know that different profiles like these below, should have different behaviour in the air.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/wing_profiles.jpg True, but only some kids in this thread dont seem to realise that the *parameter* for all wing profiles used in this game are known and understood and are just one on many inputs to a 6DOF flight model.


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
For now all we know is that the original wing profiles are not inscripted in flight model. No, the only thing we know for sure is that you dont know.


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
Unique profiles should have to be implemented - than this game will become simulator. Unique profiles are implemented, and the flight modeling/simulation is just one part of a "game". There is damage, AI, weather, ground vehicals, etc modling/simulation that is also part of the "game".


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
I am waiting that happy day, and I know that Oleg will do it some day. He has allready done it, but I am waiting that happy day, and I know that you will realise it some day...

well maybe..

maybe not..

Some year maybe?

It all comes back to that 12+ rating on the side of the box, check it out sometime, they went to alot of troble to put it there.

Hptm.Keule
05-10-2006, 07:05 AM
All of You - Dont get me wrong!
I am big friend of this project.
But I am biger friend of the truth, and my best friend is the truth.
No wing profile implementation in flight model = false feeling of flight = Big lie = time loosing in the virtual sky.

I love this project, and this wonderfull community build of very intelligent people!

Salute!

WWMaxGunz
05-10-2006, 08:13 AM
We have planes with different critical AOA's esp the planes with slats. We have planes
with effects of different shaped wings, long and thin, wide, elliptical vs rectangular.
We have planes with different lift coefficient. Put the flaps down and see if there is
no change at every degree. We have Spitfires with clipped and full wings, please tell
that they work the same because they do not. Ta-152 has high alt model with longer wings
and does not fly the same as others.

I built flying models since 6th grade, 1967-68, out of paper with cambered wings that I
did vary the curves. They flew a bit different but hey they flew also the basic same *way*.

What can you say on details, this is wrong or that is? You see *no* differences? You see
*not enough* differences? What? You say with bad spelling what looks like *equal* and I
think you are running a different sim or perhaps switched a few critical options off or are
dense like dirt or are just out trolling. Take your pick.

Oleg is no god. He is also no dummy. He cares to make good where he does not have to and
he has the education to know how at least about the flying and engineering parts.

There have been mistakes in the sim admitted and fixed. Other mistakes unfixable given
what PC is capable of and/or time and budget. But nothing like what you state, what you
claim. Since you have the big idea it is up to you to make clear what you fuddle about.

joeap
05-10-2006, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
All of You - Dont get me wrong!
I am big friend of this project.
But I am biger friend of the truth, and my best friend is the truth.
No wing profile implementation in flight model = false feeling of flight = Big lie = time loosing in the virtual sky.

I love this project, and this wonderfull community build of very intelligent people!

Salute!

Boy you are a stubborn git aren't you. Everyone is saying you are wrong and it is not a lie....wings are modeled in the game and it is not only wing profiles that make a plane fly. It doesn't matter what you or anyone thinks of Oleg what you are saying is not true and nonsense. Some friend of truth.

AKA_TAGERT
05-10-2006, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
All of You - Dont get me wrong!
I am big friend of this project.
But I am biger friend of the truth, and my best friend is the truth.
No wing profile implementation in flight model = false feeling of flight = Big lie = time loosing in the virtual sky.

I love this project, and this wonderfull community build of very intelligent people!

Salute! The only truth here is you dont know what your talking about.

HelSqnProtos
05-10-2006, 10:52 AM
S~!

Hptme Keule is making reasonable 'technical' arguement for wing variables to be more accurately modelled - most everyone can agree that they are not currently 100% modelled to give each wing design's full advantages and capabilities (ie/ laminar flow wings, sweep ect...) That most likely is a technical limitation with the current engine................ect......

I don't know if our current highend cpu's could handle that calc or not but I suspect that given that the current game engine is well over 7-9 years old that B.O.B may be able to do so. Time will tell......

There will always be knee jerk reactions to anything seen as 'questioning Oleg's Integrity' on these boards. Like anything else in life, politics has its ugly face here in the forums.

Many are trying to curry 'favor' or percieved status on the boards to the detriment of good thread topics.

Keule you will have to learn to play that political game in here and to phrase your statements accordingly.

Again very interesting request http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif................... but you need to execute the delivery a little better or all the fanboys will jump on you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

NonWonderDog
05-10-2006, 11:23 AM
No, he's saying that wing profile isn't modelled. He's wrong. There's no way to spin it other than to say he's wrong.

Each wing has it's own C_L, C_M, and C_D v. alpha curves. You can find the curves for just about all the American wing profiles in NACA report 824; other countries have similar publications. Flaps seem to change the curves the way they should; slats seem to change the curves the way they should.

This is technically only speculation, but come now. The data is readily available and easy to program (just a lookup table). When the curve data isn't available the airfoil demensions are, and I'm pretty sure Oleg knows how to use a computational fluid dynamics program to derive the curves. The planes fly realistically and exhibit differences in critical angle of attack and stall development. There's no reason to assume wing profile data isn't included.

I'm not sure exactly how the sim does wings with varied cross sections, though. Washout might be a sim effect added on top, or the wing might be divided into sections with different installation angles. The Spitfire's wings might be averaged out and treated as rectangular wings with a higher-than-normal efficiency, or they might again be divided into sections with different chord and wingarea. Little things like this are most likely responsible for some of the more ahistorical stall behavior we've sometimes seen, but this kind of stuff can never be simulated perfectly. There are only varying degrees of wrong.

JG4_Helofly
05-10-2006, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
S~!

Hptme Keule is making reasonable 'technical' arguement for wing variables to be more accurately modelled - most everyone can agree that they are not currently 100% modelled to give each wing design's full advantages and capabilities (ie/ laminar flow wings, sweep ect...) That most likely is a technical limitation with the current engine................ect......

I don't know if our current highend cpu's could handle that calc or not but I suspect that given that the current game engine is well over 7-9 years old that B.O.B may be able to do so. Time will tell......

There will always be knee jerk reactions to anything seen as 'questioning Oleg's Integrity' on these boards. Like anything else in life, politics has its ugly face here in the forums.

Many are trying to curry 'favor' or percieved status on the boards to the detriment of good thread topics.

Keule you will have to learn to play that political game in here and to phrase your statements accordingly.

Again very interesting request http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif................... but you need to execute the delivery a little better or all the fanboys will jump on you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

I agree, but like I said before: The way he wrote his post was not the best one.
Please guy let us discusse all things about this game in a cool environement.

Some times I think that it is sad that we must be very carful in every post cause other wise we will be attacked.

Let's try to talk without agressions and solve the problem.

Hptm.Keule
05-10-2006, 01:44 PM
First of all I want to thank to Protos, NonWonderDog, JG4_Helofly for the human stance! Thank guys.
I have appologised allready for the bad language in my first posts.

If wing profiles are implemented in flight model in any way I will shut up.
But they are not - I am sure.
All we know is that "something is calculating something somewere in some way..." Thats all. What is calculated? The wing profiles?
I am sure not! The new flight model was set above all old data and things went by other, " better" way. Thats all - there is no real simulation, as it should be.
There is some kind of artifical substitude.
I am trying to be constructive - in my own way.
My opinion:
Each wing profile of each aircraft shoud have to be inscripted in the software - only thus way the aircrafts will be different. The question is extreemly matter of principle.
Thats what all I meant.

Salute!

joeap
05-10-2006, 02:14 PM
They ARE modelled!!!!! White and black!!!! Guys can't you read? I don't care how polite or not the statement is, if it's wrong or right is all that counts!!! Either the earth is round or flat...(yes I know it is oblate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

It's just a matter of formulae.

JG4_Helofly
05-10-2006, 02:20 PM
The only thing I know about this is that Oleg Modeled IL2 with laws of physics. Now we can imagine that he must simplyfie these complexe things to allowing the game to run on a home pc.
Now how accurate is it?

From experience we can also say that the planes don't have there RL flight behaviours and that in some situations, dive for exemple, all planes accelerate the same till a speed is reached at which the faster aircraft draws slightly away. This is the already disscused "acceleration in dive" story.

Maybe some guys can tell how much it's simplyfied or how. Any programmers here?

Fillmore
05-10-2006, 02:27 PM
I think you [Hptm.Keule] need to read a book called "Science and Sanity" an Intorduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics by Alfred Korzybski.

"wing profile" is an English phrase. Phrases cannot be implemented in computer programs, computers only understand their own machine language, and I think there is no compiler that will complile the simple English phrase "wing profile" into any machine's language.

You need to understand the phrase "wing profile" is in effect a map written in the English language which constitutes a conceptual abstraction of the "territory" of reality (in this case a rather narrow aspect of reality).

You seem to be asking Oleg to make his computer program a real thing rather than an abstraction of such, and this is simply not a sane thing to ask.

When one says "I have travelled the four corners of the world" what one really means is "I have travelled in the real world throughout the area which is represented within the four corners of a particular map of said real world".

Do not try to make the real world have four corners, as though it were a map - that is unsane. Equally unsane is to try to make a map of the world which is not abstracted, or to insist that a map is inadequate if it is an abstraction.

Forget about trying to make Oleg use certain words in his program, think about the reality that those words represent. Be sure that Oleg is abstracting that reality as best he can.

As has been noted by others, if you compare what Oleg's map (that we call the game PF) predicts vs the measurements taken from reality, it is clear that Oleg's map is extremely good. It is also clear that it is an abstraction, and thus not complete.

In the end we must judge the quality of Oleg's map by how well its results match those of measured reality, not by what words people choose to describe it.

When people here talk about using fluid dynamics on a virtual wing profile they are still talking about an abstraction - it is using mathematical formulae on data. Guess what? This game is already using mathematical formulae on data, so why the big deal about what words are used to describe it?

All that matters is how well the game's results match those measured from reality - what equations and data are used (and what names are given to them) are not relevant. NASA does not use relativistic physics to calculate orbits for its probes, and insisting that a substantially sublight space game is arcade because it uses Classical Mechanics is absured. What might be less obvious to some is that it would also be absurd to insist that it use Classical Mechanics and not, say Etheral Mechanics (or whatever new system you want to make up), so long as an Ethereal model is used which gives good results.

It is all about the results, it is not about what names we give to the equations that produce those results.

HelSqnProtos
05-10-2006, 05:08 PM
S~!

Wow........ that was a lot of nothing........... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Try to understand what Hpte is saying. His observations are substantially correct and they are posted to try and make the sim 'more' realistic. This is a good thing. Could the language used have been better? yes but he has already apologized for this.

Lets talk about the idea now and stop the fanboy stupidity and discuss the merits of trying to improve the 'accuracy' of wing modeling UNDER MORE AND VARIED CONDITIONS OF FLIGHT - while making the whole wing modelling issue less generic.

This is a good request. Whether it can be done I don't know. Lets hear from the Man. But the request is sound.

P.S.

Quick take some screenshots -- I am defending a Blue pilot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
You don't see this everyday http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-10-2006, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
If wing profiles are implemented in flight model in any way I will shut up.

In any way. Remember you wrote that.


But they are not - I am sure.
All we know is that "something is calculating something somewere in some way..." Thats all. What is calculated? The wing profiles?
I am sure not! The new flight model was set above all old data and things went by other, " better" way. Thats all - there is no real simulation, as it should be.
There is some kind of artifical substitude.

Hope you have salt, it is time to eat words.

Impossible in a PC game is real time air over wings and around frame, yes true.
What that does not mean is that nothing is done or modelled with precision.

"The new flight model was set above all old data..." is that the old way is FM by data table.
You know that way? Given limited attributes of flight and stick position a new place in the
table links to the next step position, speed, etc. That is method of tabled FM that could
run on old PC's as well as new, is easier to code and fill data, will always get the 'right'
speed, climb, etc, and will never get the true handling or even close.

I do wish that Oleg had not stated that all others before worked that way because they do not,
just as (sorry Oleg) there have been developers before that interacted with players while
making the products or at least two I know of and one I participated in.

Now comes the implementation of wing profiles in any way part then you can shut up maybe.

Physics based flight models use formulas and data to generate the motion and much of the
data comes from software called a virtual wind tunnel or like name. The wind tunnel program
simulates airflow over wing or whole plane 3D model to generate the data to use in the sim.
The wind tunnel program can take however long it must to make the accurate data distillation
by the known physics of air over objects. And the wind tunnel softwares are very good
professional packages used in design of real full size planes, one of my squadmates who
got his AE PhD last year spent his doctoral time working on just such a thing for special
use, back and forth between real wind tunnel and program learning, understanding and making
a better product.

Red Baron 2 used such a product but cheated as the software they used was for monoplanes
only but it flew very different handling than what came before, much more real. And then
because it was close approximate only the speeds and climbs were not by charts and many
forum members threw fits so the data had to be twisted to get those few results just so
and it ruined the FM IMO, but what do I know as I was only beta for the RB3D end result?

Yes, approximation, because DUH it has to run on PC with everything else going on.
Yes, wing profile and more are modelled even though the fine details are PRE-CALCULATED
just be d@mn sure that they are there and the f-ing wing shapes, profile and all, do
matter.

Go look on aero sites at how things fly and they show lift curves and like. Airflow is
explained how it makes the lift curves and other like drag formula, etc, that are used
in flight modelling or just in real the way to estimate how your plane will turn, climb
and otherwise fly.

The SIM uses the lift and other curve data and formula. Those are calculated outside the
sim and do not need to have the details that make them redone every increment of flight.
That does not make the sim arcade or shooter. It is how simulation is done professionally.

You want more, buy or build the plane because that is the only way.
Hope you can understand.

reisen52
05-10-2006, 08:31 PM
Here is what Oleg himself said about it.

Question: "There are many ways to concieve an FM, some use tables some use physics some use a matrix to name a few. To develope a true Physics based FM you have to either build exact duplicates of each aircraft, either physically or virtually, and do wind tunnel testing. Has this has been done?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer: "Here you are perfectly right. We just do it partially. Simplified in many ways. And I never told that we do exact copy of each single aircraft...isn't it? Simply if we'll calculate say only airfoil in terms of all real time calculations - we'll get freezed PC. So we are going for some predifined terms (again not table) and we simplify the formulas to the level that possible to use in real time on a current PC together with other real time calculations. That is only the right way for the current moment of the simulation word if we'll speak about simulator that is able to work on home PC, but not to use the separate restricted computers for different tasks (like for big military simulators of single aircraft).

Perfect way when all _real_ time calculations will be possible to handle in one PC. For that thing its still long way

Oleg"

The debate is really all about how simplified is IL2/PF since Oleg said "And I never told that we do exact copy of each single aircraft...isn't it?"

Zeke

ucanfly
05-10-2006, 09:38 PM
I think it is an important point to remember that there are many simplifications and many here who swear by the flight model are just fooling themselves. The question is do others do it better?

Personally I see a more convincing flight model in payware on MSFS but those cost a lot per plane and don't have to worry about AI tactics and bullets. BOBII is better in some respects (smoother) , but worse at others (inertia) IMHO. As far as AI goes I too am getting tired of the rampant cheating the AI does such as seeing thru clouds, not worrying about engines and Gs, and having ahistoric maneuverability.

Bottom line - nobody has got it right and nobody will for the near future. But at least Oleg is trying. Only time will tell if he's stopped trying to improve on the FMs in the FB/PF series.

AKA_TAGERT
05-10-2006, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
First of all I want to thank to Protos, NonWonderDog, JG4_Helofly for the human stance! Thank guys. Great minds think alike.. so do not so great minds


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
I have appologised allready for the bad language in my first posts. So


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
If wing profiles are implemented in flight model in any way I will shut up. Promise?


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
But they are not - I am sure. So.. The only thing for sure is that you have not presented anything to support your claim


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
All we know is that "something is calculating something somewere in some way..." Thats all. What is calculated? The wing profiles? Why is it that guys who don€t have a clue about FM feel the need to comment on how an FM should be? Ok Mr. Smarty pants.. Tell us.. How would you do it than? Show us the code you would use to do the majic of wing profiles!


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
I am sure not! First true statement you have made thus far


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
The new flight model was set above all old data and things went by other, " better" way. Thats all - there is no real simulation, as it should be.
There is some kind of artifical substitude. What a classic smacktard statement, i.e.

"there is no real simulation!"

Really? So, let me see if I understand what your trying to say..

a simulation is not real

Huh.. who would have guessed! Thanks for enlighten us with that pearl! But, seriosly, if you think that is funny, check out what he said next, i.e.

"some kind of artifical substitude"

Hence the name.. simulation!

Hptm.. please, oh god please tell me you are not this silly and that you are just trolling.. for the sake of all that is good tell me your just trolling!


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
I am trying to be constructive - in my own way.
Agreed 100%.. in a very short yellow bus way


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
My opinion: Agreed 100%


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
Each wing profile of each aircraft shoud have to be inscripted in the software - only thus way the aircrafts will be different. They are, now be a man of your word and stfu


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
The question is extreemly matter of principle.
Thats what all I meant.

Salute! It is not a mater of principle, it is a mater of ignorance chiming in on something they should have never chimed in on.

HelSqnProtos
05-10-2006, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
It is not a mater of principle, it is a mater of ignorance chiming in on something they should have never chimed in on.

Since when did that ever stop YOU ?

AKA_TAGERT
05-10-2006, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
Since when did that ever stop YOU ? Poor Protos.. so sensitive

Hptm.Keule
05-11-2006, 12:32 AM
AKA_TAGERT, You call me troll - I know what does it means (man in forum which is talking just to create noise and emnity - but if You go on attack my person, but not my statements - the ony troll here is You. Nice, fine humor from Your side mate, I realy enjoyed..what did You say: Yellow buss... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif! Master of empty/hostile retorics.Can't You see - I am fighting on Your side man, at the risc to be killed from crazy fans like You.
Fillmore, formally You are right but I am using the same engine of logic as You - I just wanted to know, does the MOST important thing in aerodinamics of the aircraft is included there when it should have to be (the unique wing profiles in the artificial flight model).

HERE IS THE OFFICIAL SIDE OF THIS DISPUTE:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Does the idividual wing profile, affects in any way the individual fligft of the individual aircraft. Does the speciffic wing profile restricts in any way the common flight model implemented at the individual aircraft.</span>
Sorry, but may be just now You will understand what I relly meant.My fault.
In other way the aircrafts in this simulator will be distinguished only by their camouflages and weapons (typical for the shooters) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif.

If anybody knows for sure lets say it.

Salute!
Thanks to all!

Fillmore
05-11-2006, 01:34 AM
I like "unsane" over "smacktard".

I already know what Hpte is trying to say, just like I know what the four corners of the world or even just look up (when one really means look out, as we are actually standing on the surface of a sphere) means, but I don't think Hpte understands the problem, which is with the structure of what he says. He uses an abstraction (individual wing profile) as though it were what it represents, rather than an abstraction thereof.

I know it is very hard in any language to express different levels of abstraction, one says "the world" when when means "a map[abstraction] of the world" without even thinking of it. One points to a map and says "this is Paris" et al.

The problem comes when, as in this case, you ask for an abstraction to be real, or at least you structure your statements that way (or you are asking if an abstraction of a thing affects an abstraction of that same thing which makes just as little sense).

As for Hptm's yellow text, I think MaxGunz covered it well. To summerize: Different aircraft have different FMs, and the differences in those FMs reflect (i.e. are structurally similar to) differences in the real world characteristics of those different aircraft and their different wing profiles. Therefore the answer is YES.

But what Hpte is really trying to say is that he feels that the abstractions leave out too much in certain situations. This is a perception and the question must be, how much is too much? This is what requires hard data.

When we speak of abstraction we speak of leaving things out, making complex things simpler.

What you should be asking for is not that some particular equations be used, or abstractions made to what degree, but rather that the game give results consistent with real world measurements under more varied conditions. I think even Oleg must agree that his abstraction does not work well at representing altitudes above 10000m. There seems to be a feeling among some that there are other conditions where the abstraction breaks down (an abstraction breaks down when something is left out that has a significant impact, like not modelling differences in altitude above 10000m when one is above 10000m).

What needs to be done is to define the conditions under which the sim is percieved to be breaking down (diving, climbing, very high speed flight, high AoA flight, very low speed flight near stall speeds, and departed flight come to mind as things I have read others percieve as being fubar), and provide data to show that it has, in fact broken down. Overall I think Hptm gives the impression of exhaggerating the degree to which the sim is off (that planes are only different by their skins and guns is rather extreme).

But if you want to make demands for BoB in terms of flight fidelity I think your best bet is to define the conditions under which you want the model to be less simple and more accurate, and define how accurate you want it to be.

I want differences in altitude to be modelled at least to 20000m

I want fuel locations to be portrayed such that using fuel from different tanks has effects consistent with changes in CoG (note how I said that so that levels of abstraction were not confused - I could have just said "...effects CoG").

I want critical electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic systems to be portrayed in the DM coupled with flight effects consistent with their loss (like wheels dropping with loss of hydraulic pressure or loss of electrical systems if a junction box is hit).

I want engine oil, fuel, coolant and electrical systems portrayed seperately in the DM and I want the effects of their loss to be consistent with actual effects with regards to engine power output and reuseability, basically I want portrayed the difference between an engine that cannot continue producing power, and one that can but will need to be rebuilt.

joeap
05-11-2006, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
In other way the aircrafts in this simulator will be distinguished only by their camouflages and weapons (typical for the shooters) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif.

If anybody knows for sure lets say it.

Salute!
Thanks to all!

Well others said wing profiles are modelled...but I must disagree with you the planes already fly differently now!! Not as much as in reality, but more than an arcade shooter.

Anyway...all planes in reality obyey the same laws of physics, don't forget that. I think I understand what you want and of course am for more detailed wing profiles 100%.

WWMaxGunz
05-11-2006, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by reisen52:
Here is what Oleg himself said about it.

Question: "There are many ways to concieve an FM, some use tables some use physics some use a matrix to name a few. To develope a true Physics based FM you have to either build exact duplicates of each aircraft, either physically or virtually, and do wind tunnel testing. Has this has been done?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer: "Here you are perfectly right. We just do it partially. Simplified in many ways. And I never told that we do exact copy of each single aircraft...isn't it? Simply if we'll calculate say only airfoil in terms of all real time calculations - we'll get freezed PC. So we are going for some predifined terms (again not table) and we simplify the formulas to the level that possible to use in real time on a current PC together with other real time calculations. That is only the right way for the current moment of the simulation word if we'll speak about simulator that is able to work on home PC, but not to use the separate restricted computers for different tasks (like for big military simulators of single aircraft).

Perfect way when all _real_ time calculations will be possible to handle in one PC. For that thing its still long way

Oleg"

The debate is really all about how simplified is IL2/PF since Oleg said "And I never told that we do exact copy of each single aircraft...isn't it?"

Zeke

You won't get a lot of details from Oleg in English and reading too far into his text is risky.
It's risky enough one English speaker to another how well the question was understood and then
how well the answer to not exactly the question is understood often in terms only of the question.
But he does say solid things.

The sim does not have perfect planes and airflow. There is no computer to do that in real time.
By now they may be able to do a wing alone in RT but I think they still have to do shortcuts,
that is for super-detail is not happening with air as a fluid -- a shortcut itself as air is
a mixture of molecules when you go looking for as much reality as anyone has determined.

The real-real is unknowable as any truely honest physicist can tell you. You want real then
you have to use real.

So the sim does not have *exact* models down to the smallest detail and surface finish.
Anyone surprised by that or even expecting that is a clueless tech-idiot. Just get in line,
it's over there somewhere.

So how do they make the data for the shortcuts? Consider that they made models to determine
bullet scatter and the effect of vibration in gun mounts and airframes. Consider the business
that Oleg was in before making IL2. Is there wind tunnel software or did they take the existing
charts and data to make guesses at the parts that no chart or data exists for, to seperate
those parts that chart values are end result of many factors? I would be VERY SURPRISED if
Oleg was to say they did not make some level of model into a software wind tunnel. That is
not what the quote above says, btw.

Just what discrete aero equations they did blend and how is what is known as a company secret
but holy cow you look at the behaviours, and I did a good bit of emailing with Oryx (the guy
who got his AE doctorate last year) about these and the detail is phenomenal for a combat
flight sim. He compares to MSCFS and the 1% models and his comment is to within 1% of what
they know which is far short. The MS method misses on handling.

I'll take a few numbers being off a bit over the differences in how the sims fly, myself.
Guess who does not only the differences in wings but what happens because of those best?
First name starts with O, last name starts with M, and he works in Moscow.

reisen52
05-11-2006, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You won't get a lot of details from Oleg in English and reading too far into his text is risky.

It's risky enough one English speaker to another how well the question was understood and then how well the answer to not exactly the question is understood often in terms only of the question.

I would be VERY SURPRISED if Oleg was to say they did not make some level of model into a software wind tunnel.


This is one post from a very long debate with Oleg running for about a week & unfortunately its the only one I saved

You can claim to see whatever you want to see in it, but in the context of a large number posts only about this one subject Oleg's answer is very literal & in direct response to very direct questions.

If you doubt that cut & paste the statement, send him an email & ask him about it.

As it was recognized that Oleg has some trouble, not all that much, with English he was offered the opportunity of using Russian and having one of the guys, a retired USAF F-4 pilot working at NASA-Dryden, in the debate translate. He did not feel that was necessary.

As for your assumption that Oleg did do wind tunnel testing all I can say is he avoided a direct answer to that question a number of times which is what prompted the phrasing of the question that was posted as a lead to his answer.

Overall it was the most open thread on Oleg's part about how he creates his flight models.

It also explained the somewhat generic responses that were created by his "predefined terms" which were described as modules. It is also interesting that he has addressed some but not all of the issues discussed in later patches.

Zeke

AKA_TAGERT
05-11-2006, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
AKA_TAGERT, You call me troll - I know what does it means (man in forum which is talking just to create noise and emnity - but if You go on attack my person, but not my statements - the ony troll here is You. You just described your orginal post to Oleg about his FM that you have no clue about what so ever, therefore the shoe fits.. you are a troll.. Me Im the guy who kicks trolls in the arse.. fight fire with fire I allways say.


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
Nice, fine humor from Your side mate, I realy enjoyed..what did You say: Yellow buss... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif! Master of empty/hostile retorics.Can't You see - I am fighting on Your side man, at the risc to be killed from crazy fans like You. Trust me.. you are not on my side!


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
Fillmore, formally You are right but I am using the same engine of logic as You - I just wanted to know, does the MOST important thing in aerodinamics of the aircraft is included there when it should have to be (the unique wing profiles in the artificial flight model). Not true.. you did not want to know because you did not ask.. You came in here and made an unfounded statement, you accused Oleg of doing things that you have no idea about, proof of that was you trying to imply that the shape of the 3D art affects the flight model. Even after you apolgised you contined to make unfounded statments and give us your wothless opinion on how it SHOULD WORK when you have no clue about how it DOES WORK. The way it works in the real world, if you dont understand how something works, ASK! Dont start off telling someone it is broke when you dont even know what it is your refering to.


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
HERE IS THE OFFICIAL SIDE OF THIS DISPUTE:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Does the idividual wing profile, affects in any way the individual fligft of the individual aircraft. Does the speciffic wing profile restricts in any way the common flight model implemented at the individual aircraft.</span> I would say yes.. but it would be a waist of time in that several people have allready said yes to you with regards to this question.. Yet you keep asking it.. Thus your long term memory is in error or your a troll.. Which one is it?


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
Sorry, but may be just now You will understand what I relly meant.My fault. No I understood you were a clueles troll from your first attack on Oleg in your first post.


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
In other way the aircrafts in this simulator will be distinguished only by their camouflages and weapons (typical for the shooters) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif. See, another unfouded ignorant statment


Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
If anybody knows for sure lets say it.

Salute!
Thanks to all! Why? You will just keep asking the question until someone says no, then lock arms with that person and run down the road of ignorant bliss.

Hptm.Keule
05-11-2006, 10:40 AM
We still have no clear proof that we have different wing profiles implemented in flight model. Somebody have some feelings about the matter but no any proof.
Tagert You just belive in Olegs perfection - You talk more about my person then about the subject of this dispute.

I dont need any proofs becose I know that there is no any thing like implemented wing profiles. This is the ***n truth. The big lie in which all of us are loosing their time sitting at the PC beliving that they are pilots in to the WW2.
When Il2 cames it was great! But latter You will sorry for all that time spent in to the virtual sky. What You are doind here? Flying? Boiz You are loosing Your time. Nice way to excercise violence without any sanction. And one more thing: Do You know why You want so much to fly and shoot...do You know...Proffesor Fillmore do you know. Man do You know...It is connected with Your UNCONSCIOUSNESS
"...to pierce soft matery (THE WOMAN'S IMAGE in your mind) the (air) with Your BIG ***** (your aircraft). To exercise repeating acts (with You mashine guns ) at somebody at his 6 o'clock...shooting = ****ing...PURE SEX...Thats why all are here. SEX AND VIOLENCE!
Thats why You are so sensitive when I blame Oleg - Your ***** (your aircraft) ist seems is not real. Bad performance? Impossible!!! Everything is PERFECT! Oleg IS PERFECT = I AM REAL MAN!=I can shoot/**** everybody online...Friendly advise: Dont squeeze too much the Joystic - it can hurt You http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif.
I am leaving this fine community becose primitive creatures like You and the BIG LIE. There is no sex here.Go home and have fun with Your girl friend .This is the better way to satify Your instinct.Dont shoot at any aircraft here - its very possible that man but not woman is sittin inside! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Oleg is playng with Your primitive instincts.
DONT ARGUE I AM GRADUATED IN PSICHOANALISIS.

I was here just about flying, but there is no any thing like fliying or simulation of flying.
DONT LOOSE YOUR TIME - GET the real things from life.
There is only SEX AND VIOLENCE. ALLWAYS HAVE THIS IN MIND WHAEN YOU START IL2.exe

WWMaxGunz
05-11-2006, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:
Here is what Oleg himself said about it.

Question: "There are many ways to concieve an FM, some use tables some use physics some use a matrix to name a few. To develope a true Physics based FM you have to either build exact duplicates of each aircraft, either physically or virtually, and do wind tunnel testing. Has this has been done?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer: "Here you are perfectly right. We just do it partially. Simplified in many ways. And I never told that we do exact copy of each single aircraft...isn't it? Simply if we'll calculate say only airfoil in terms of all real time calculations - we'll get freezed PC. So we are going for some predifined terms (again not table) and we simplify the formulas to the level that possible to use in real time on a current PC together with other real time calculations. That is only the right way for the current moment of the simulation word if we'll speak about simulator that is able to work on home PC, but not to use the separate restricted computers for different tasks (like for big military simulators of single aircraft).

Perfect way when all _real_ time calculations will be possible to handle in one PC. For that thing its still long way

Oleg"

The debate is really all about how simplified is IL2/PF since Oleg said "And I never told that we do exact copy of each single aircraft...isn't it?"

Zeke

Please show where *he* says they did not use any virtual wind tunnel to derive their FM data.

I see wind tunnel testing mentioned as a small part of a long question.

I see Oleg stating that they did not make exact copies of the planes and how it would freeze
the PC if they tried.

Nothing about how they got their data for the simplified (simpler than just what?) formulae.

He says not exact copies which is not to say that undetailed models were used and he does
not say JACK about wind tunnels.

If you're going to make a physics based model then you have to get down to factors rather
than totals. That is what virtual wind tunnels are for and they've been in use before Oleg
started on IL2. Others have used them before although how good the VWT was for Dynamix I
can't say but their models were certainly NOT exact copies as it's hard to run a biplane
model in a monoplane-only VWT and they were still able to come out with a good initial FM.

I'm going from what I know, what I see and what I have in more than one sim.

The proper question should have been "Did you use any kind of wind tunnel software in making
your data for the planes?" or something equally direct without other extras not just thrown
in but starting out with and the wind tunnel bit as a minor part at the end. The question
as stated is very little about wind tunnel testing which as written is close to afterthought.
Cripes, if that's the point of the question then it was asked in a very unclear manner even
for someone with English as their major language. You put the subject of most concern up
front, not as a dribble at the end.

reisen52
05-12-2006, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Please show where *he* says they did not use any virtual wind tunnel to derive their FM data.

I see wind tunnel testing mentioned as a small part of a long question.

You put the subject of most concern up
front, not as a dribble at the end.

I think the question is quite clear, obviously your personal results may vary, but then you were not there.

Which part of, he avoided answering specific wind tunnel questions, which were asked a number of times in about a weeks worth of postings, don't you understand?

As for the simplifications Oleg said very clearly "We just do it partially. Simplified in many ways." You want to spin "partially" & "many" as a 99% solution be my guest.

Zeke

NonWonderDog
05-12-2006, 01:08 PM
I think the point is that you need Cl, Cm, and Cd curves in order to make a physics based flight model. These curves have to come from somewhere. One possibility is to use the official airfoil data and average it out over the wing. The other possibility is to make a model (physical or virtual) of the wing and measure it that way. You don't even have to make a perfect model of the plane or even the wings, all you REALLY need to do is make 2D models of the airfoil cross-sections at various points. The silhouette of the wing can be abstracted (doesn't even X-Plane do something like this?). You won't get perfect behavior at high angles of attack or slip angles using the method, but it will be close enough.

Although Oleg hasn't said anything about this specifically, it's hard to imagine that he wouldn't do at least something like this.

WWMaxGunz
05-12-2006, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:
I think the question is quite clear, obviously your personal results may vary, but then you were not there.

Which part of, he avoided answering specific wind tunnel questions, which were asked a number of times in about a weeks worth of postings, don't you understand?

As for the simplifications Oleg said very clearly "We just do it partially. Simplified in many ways." You want to spin "partially" & "many" as a 99% solution be my guest.

Zeke

I've been on this forum since October 2001 and do remember seeing Oleg post such things.

We do it just partially. Simplified in many ways.

As opposed to full reality and with every sim ever made even the pro sim boxes that is true
for the running of the sim itself.

A virtual wind tunnel, indeed every last one also fits that description. Only a real wind
tunnel at full scale can give full real results. Unless perhaps you have one that goes down
to the molecular level, all others simplify air flow as a fluid behaving to known formulae
that are shortcuts. Most wind tunnel by software is much more simplified yet works well
enough to be a real aircraft design tool. That is tool as opposed to complete one button
solution.

Look at the rest of his answer. It would freeze the PC. Guess what? Virtual wind tunnel
does not freeze, it just takes a long time to produce full wing data. So was he answering
about wind tunnel? What is your spin? I look at the WHOLE ANSWER to see the sense of what
is being communicated while you apparently want to play word games. What is obvious to me
seems to be spin you. The question that was asked has many parts and the answer does not
have a 1:1 correspondance but that is not clear to you?

I've stood stuck in a Best Buys while my brother and a manager argued over a deal my brother
had made over a laptop with extended warranty. Both of them knew they were right and knew
what the other was saying, they thought. Both were businessmen. So I listened close after
about a half hour to what both actually said, wrote some numbers on a piece of paper with
2 labels, "Your deal" and "His deal". Funny but the store manager wanted to sell for less
than my brother wanted to pay. So the next time the manager pushed his deal my brother said
sold and the manager never did figure it out.
They both spoke English with a heavy accent on assumption and neither really listened to
the answers they got. You have to read the answer without the expectation of meaning.

If Oleg doesn't say wind tunnel then he isn't talking about wind tunnel. From the answer
given he is talking about the sim and the running of the sim itself. If he 'avoided' any
talk of wind tunnels that doesn't mean there ain't any and if you put conditions in the
question as well as wind tunnel then that will affect what a positive or negative answer
will mean. It is simple logic, a 'no' to 'this' AND 'that' does not mean 'no' to both.

Like I stated above; I would be very surprised if some level of virtual wind tunnel was
not used. You understand what that says? Taking gross performance data and trying to
extract correct data is very hard compared to running even a common VWT and for all the
planes we have there is not the real data.

I strongly expect that even CFS 1 used VWT data but then Tucker Hatfield who was on the
RB3D team that used one did move over to MS to work on CFS. It's a standard tool.

reisen52
05-12-2006, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

I've been on this forum since October 2001 and do remember seeing Oleg post such things.

Thing is this specific debate was not on an UBI forum & took place before 10/01, so you did not see it & don't know the context of his answer in relation to all the other pages of posts that were made.

Zeke

The_Gorey
05-12-2006, 08:43 PM
to the original poster:

the fact that you think the 3D representation of the wing profile has anything to do with it's flight model indicates you have no idea how a flight sim works.

if the game had that much fidelity, we'd need supercomputers to run it.

they are most likely making some generalizations about the wing for each plane that the physics loop works with. how they arrive at this generalization is probably from a number of factors such as it's NACA profile, its total area and various other aeronautics properties such as (wash-out) that i know very little about.

WWMaxGunz
05-12-2006, 10:18 PM
Okay Zeke, where's the rest?

blindpugh
05-13-2006, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by BadA1m:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
Hello all brave pilots!

There is one VERY IMPORTANT question about this, and the future (BOB) simulator!
Here it is:
Does the unique wing profile of the each aircraft is implemented in his behaviour in the air - or each aircraft have one equal to others aircrafts flight model?
We all knou how many different wing profiles have for example Bf 109 and P 51! They should not be under one flight model!

<span class="ev_code_RED">Unique wing profile = unique flight!</span>
I know that the 3D model of the wing in this simulator is not equal to the profile of the original wing (look for example at the angular 3D wing profile of IL2 series)...So?
<span class="ev_code_RED">Does the UNIQUE ORIGINAL WING PROFILE IS IMPLEMENTED IN BEHAVIOUR OF THE UNIQUE AIRCRAFT?</span>
If the answer is no - this is not aircraft simulator, but just another aircraft shooter game like many, many others!

Oleg are you realy the Wizzard or or just another good illusionist hungry for the money of the mob?!
Please state!

Friendly Regards!

Are you freakin' kidding? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>methinks hauptman keule is a 5th columnist fishing for information to help the luftwhiners become even more uber(hahaha)

reisen52
05-13-2006, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Okay Zeke, where's the rest?

I would think it was one of the boards I viewed regularly at the time, most likely Netwings, Sim-Outhouse, SimHQ, Simviation or maybe one that is long gone.

I thought the posting date was earlier because of Oleg's signup date for the forum but based on my registration here of July 2003 it must have been in the spring or summer of the year before that as I joined UBI after Forgotten Battles was released.

This post was from about the same time.

oleg,i don't know about real 109,but in the game flew 109F2,G2,G6,G6late,G,/AS,La5FN,Lagg3 1943,Lagg3IT,Lagg3 1941,and the turn coordinator goes RIGHT when i turn LEFT,the ball reacts ok.
don't know for warbirds,but for all aircraft i flew (and that's a few),if you turn LEFT,the ball goes LEFT AND the turn coordinator goes LEFT .

in the game,Fw series react this way,yak series too,P39 series too,Mig series too,IL2 series too.

your historical knowledge beeing huge,mine beeing small,could you oleg tell me the reason for the turn coordinator beeing inverted in some planes ?

it must have been quite difficult for pilots that had flown fw190 to change to bf109 in those conditions,same for pilots from mig to lagg3 then yak...

well,waiting to grow my knowledge,thanks oleg for reading


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

Ok. Now understand. Such things should be explained me much early.
We'lkl take a look and then if there si bugs with it will make changes in V1.05, nit in 1.04.Sorry

Oleg Maddox
1C:Maddox Games

Oleg's signup date from the notepad copy.

Oleg Maddox
Member
From: Moscow, Russia
Registered: Feb 2000

Zeke

tigertalon
05-13-2006, 09:50 AM
You pointed out 109 and P51, so let's speak bout them:

P51 has a laminar flow wing, 109 has not. Let's not go into details what a laminar flow wing is, let's rather check how it affects FM:

Laminar flow wing has way less drag, thus planes with such a wing should have longer range/better speed.

Now check speed and rage for 109 and for P51 (and make sure to consicer power / weight at both planes). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-13-2006, 11:37 AM
Here is a software wind tunnel to *some* level for free as public domain.

http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/FoilSim/index.html

Does that qualify as simplified?

reisen52
05-13-2006, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Here is a software wind tunnel to *some* level for free as public domain. Does that qualify as simplified?

For some reason you seem to be intent on finding a simplified light at the end of a virtual wind tunnel.

What is simplified is the resulting flight model, from where ever it came, used in the IL-2 series.

The original debate, way back whenever, was about a claim by many of the fans that the game used a pure physics based flight model in real time & that's why there could be no errors in the IL-2 flight models.

Our side of the debate said this was way beyond what a home computer could process & Oleg agreed with us, much to the dismay of the "purest" fans. This is why I saved the message.

Also, the many flight model changes in all the subsequent patches/add-ons since then & all the flight model improvements promised in BoB just further underscore that was a fact.

As I said earlier the debate in this thread really about how simplified he had to make the flight models to work on a home computer that is incapable of calculating even a simple airfoil without freezing according to Oleg.

When a guy who said he had the game for a week was able to show screenshots at UBI of himself piloting a Bf-109 inverted under a very low & very narrow span bridge suggests this simplification is a lot more then just the smallest detail and surface finish.

Zeke

NonWonderDog
05-13-2006, 04:43 PM
You don't have to calculate an airfoil in real time! No one's saying that. What we're saying is that, although the sim itself doesn't calculate airfoils, the airfoils were almost certainly pre-calculated and the results were used as data in the flight model. Thus, in a roundabout way, the effects of different wing profiles are simulated. Wasn't that what this thread was about?

Now, wings are not the same all the way through. There's washout, flaps, ailerons, gun-port openings, etc. In order to get near-perfect accuracy you'd have to build a perfect 1:1 scale model of the aircraft and measure it's reaction to airflow at all possible speeds and orientations. And build yourself a table-based flight model, too, because there's no reason to use (by their very nature, "simplified") physics formulae if you've already gone to that much trouble to get experimental data.

That's obviously not how it's done, so it's "simplified." Exactly how is probably a trade secret, but you can be sure that there are data tables for lift, drag, and moment coefficients for at least a few airfoils. "Simplified" does not mean chosen willy-nilly with no basis in aerodynamics, it means aerodynamic formulae are used to approximate the result to less accuracy and in fewer iterations than in an "unsimplified" model.

What are you trying to accomplish? Why does it matter if someone can fly inverted under a bridge? It's hard -- I can't do it but once in ten tries -- but there's absolutely no reason it should be impossible.

reisen52
05-13-2006, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Here is a software wind tunnel to *some* level for free as public domain.

http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/FoilSim/index.html

Does that qualify as simplified?

BTW: foilsim is not a virtual wind tunnel. It's a teaching aid. With a few exceptions, most virtual wind tunnels are only good at generating data between the alpha primes.

Zeke

reisen52
05-13-2006, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:

What are you trying to accomplish?

Kill some time while enjoying myself like most people who post to the internet.


Originally posted by NonWonderDog: Why does it matter if someone can fly inverted under a bridge? It's hard -- I can't do it but once in ten tries -- but there's absolutely no reason it should be impossible.

Because it says a lot about the fidelity of the flight model & clearly demonstrates that this is just a computer game & quite far from real life.

I think many guys get all bent out of shape over flight models because they are valuing themselves by how well they play a computer game. Any suggestion that its less then 100% real life whacks their self-esteem so they tend to over react on the websites.

That being said the bridge in question had about 2 feet wing tip to abutment clearance & about 3 feet prop tip to ground/road-deck clearance in the vertical.

You might be a great pilot that can do this at a rate of 1 out of 10 tries but in real life I would believe a very, very experienced Luftwaffe pilot in a Bf-109 would die 99 times out of 100 if not 100 times out of 100 tries.

A guy trying to do something like this in real life with one weeks experience like the poster would be interesting to see.

Zeke

WWMaxGunz
05-13-2006, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Here is a software wind tunnel to *some* level for free as public domain. Does that qualify as simplified?

For some reason you seem to be intent on finding a simplified light at the end of a virtual wind tunnel.

What is simplified is the resulting flight model, from where ever it came, used in the IL-2 series. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup. We all agree there I am sure.


The original debate, way back whenever, was about a claim by many of the fans that the game used a pure physics based flight model in real time & that's why there could be no errors in the IL-2 flight models.

Either there is a communication gap or people who would believe that are idiots.


Our side of the debate said this was way beyond what a home computer could process & Oleg agreed with us, much to the dismay of the "purest" fans. This is why I saved the message.

Also, the many flight model changes in all the subsequent patches/add-ons since then & all the flight model improvements promised in BoB just further underscore that was a fact.

As I said earlier the debate in this thread really about how simplified he had to make the flight models to work on a home computer that is incapable of calculating even a simple airfoil without freezing according to Oleg.

How simple? Find another combat flight sim that has more of what Oleg calls modes of flight.

Take a tabled sim like Dynamix Aces of the Pacific. All the top speeds are 'perfect' as are
the climb rates and I guess maybe the turn rates plus any other speeds or rates they could
nail down in 16-bit addressable tables. Would you call AotP more realistic flying than IL2
that doesn't have the 'perfect' (say expected) performance numbers? Do I need to ask?


When a guy who said he had the game for a week was able to show screenshots at UBI of himself piloting a Bf-109 inverted under a very low & very narrow span bridge suggests this simplification is a lot more then just the smallest detail and surface finish.

Zeke

I was taking a Gulfstream III systems training coarse as part of writing database and software
for training systems the company I was with was making. Do you know that the sim techs down
there would pilot the sim boxes with movement off just to fly inverted under a bridge there
in the sim world which then, 1988, was at night only? What the instructor told me, what they
tell everyone is that the sim boxes are harder to fly than the real plane. That's a 5 million
dollar full motion commercial jet sim run on several VAX's true beyond need and the software
used shortcut algorithms. It was also dedicated to not much else than flying one plane.

IMHO we may have broken the 50% real line and we may not but the planes don't fly so much
alike as to begin to support claims of all wings the same. The stall behaviours are not the
same, not just critical AOA but how fast lift and speed go downhill with increasing AOA.

I was concerned about lowspeed climbrates which I have seen decrease while at the same time
I've found out things about full power-on stalls in high power planes that change my ideas
of what may be possible.

View system including LOD's is more a concern to me now. Big chunk of realism there will
never be more real than flat with pixels can support. Planes that disappear while I watch
is a sore point, it makes me run with limited icons.