PDA

View Full Version : balance game vs. realism



XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:30 PM
"balance game" vs. "realism"

What is the reason for such a choice? Sexyal fantasion?

Member of A-20 Havoc whiners. Over two thousand nine hundred A-20s delivered to the USSR, be sure!

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:30 PM
"balance game" vs. "realism"

What is the reason for such a choice? Sexyal fantasion?

Member of A-20 Havoc whiners. Over two thousand nine hundred A-20s delivered to the USSR, be sure!

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:01 PM
I am wondering this to and after reading a post by Youss I come to this conclusion.The FW190 is supposed to be the better plane but in FB its not so Maddox had to cut accelleration from the 109's to give the 190's better dive and hence zoom capabilities otherwia\se why would any LW fighters use the 190 if 109 was better at everything??!!?!

He went to far and now must add some back give him a Break!!>i pity the MAddox game guys for having a simplified FM and having to Try to make it as close to real life as we the IL2 fans demand/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

There is something missing in the FB FM program and I believe it to be that the weight of a plane is not modeled in the dive and zoom capabilities of each plane.Take any plane and at 500kph and 0alt pull up and see how high you get with engine off.they all reach same alt and this is due to not having a physics based FM working with the aerodynamics based FM.They should hit different alt depending on their mass and their aerodynamic drag numbers.This woldhave our home pc's crawling along to calculate all this at same time so I take this and live with it since the MG aerodynamics model is top of the line...period.


Without this physics stuff being modeled poor oleg and crew have to make some crazy adjustments to the sim to counter act this lack of physics based FM performance.Oleg has stated that its very hard to model correctly in an aerodynamics based FM.The next Fm for future IL2 line will probably/hopefully start adding Physics based calculations to the mix.Im hoping that center of gravity and weight distribution are in too as this will give the planes there individual feel at the controls.Things such as the fact that all poliparkov fighters were very sensitive to controls due to such short length of fuselage.And then how mig with its center of gravity way foward had excellent stability in pitch due from this.Will be interesting to see how individual planes behave when trying to line up shots/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:06 PM
These two things are mutually exclusive.

If the rumors are true about the team making FM decisions based on "game balance", then the sim becomes a game, pure and simple. They have NOTHING to stand on in terms of realism. WWIIOL did this earlier this year, and that title is looking more and more silly as time goes on.

What I can't understand is why people can't get it through their thick heads that you can balance a scenario (indeed the whole game) EASILY through the victory conditions and force ratios. Give the side with the advantage in aircraft a tougher road to hoe, or difficult victory conditions. Make lesser aircraft less 'dear' in terms of victory conditions, etc. etc. It's called MISSION DESIGN. That has nothing to do with FM accuracy, which is fairly black and white. Either the models hit the numbers within +/- a certain tolerance or they don't.

I always laugh, for instance, when I'm on HyperLobby and some guy running a scenario is desperately trying to make sure there are equal numbers of VVS and LW pilots, heedless of what the mission is. Equal numbers of human pilots does not a 'balanced' scenario make, not just by that one factor.

This bodes ill, and I hope it's a misquote or Oleg comes in and explains it.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 10:45 PM
There are at least two very different ways to tweak the flight performance.

First, you can change the parameters of an individual aircraft.

Second, you can change GLOBAL settings.

The developers have done BOTH. Changing the global settings means you have to go back and readjust the individual settings for each aircraft to ensure they still fly properly. This is a problem.

For example, induced drag was reduced substantially in FB 1.1b. People noticed the obvious things, like Fw 190 ballooning on final approach and most aircraft easily overspeeding in shallow dives. FB 1.1f and FB 1.11 attempted to fix that and the lack of induced drag is not quite a pronounced.

However, the global physics are still hosed. Try this test: set up G-11 gliders in the FMB and watch them glide. In FB 1.11 the G-11 glider has a glide ratio of over 50:1. This is absurd.

For that matter, try a power-off glide test with any aircraft you please. This sim makes heavy fighters glide as well as competition sailplanes. In an attempt to address the "E-bleed" complaints, the developers have hosed the drag model.

We have seen in previous patches that Forgotten Battles is a hopeless mess of spaghetti code. The developers try to fix one thing and break something else in the process.

As much as I love FB, I think Oleg is right in stopping development. IL-2/FB was a trendsetter and 3 years after its initial release it is still untouchable. Now it is time to push the envelope again by doing a proper physics model in "the next sim".

Member of A-20 Havoc whiners. Over two thousand nine hundred A-20s delivered to the USSR, be sure!

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 10:57 PM
Agree/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif just a couple of more tweaks and Ill gladly wait for the next FM advancement.

Another anamoly is diving in a Jug with engine cut off and the plane never stops speeding up while other planes stop at different speeds.This is Maddoxs way of giving the Jug its exceptional dive that it is purported to have.Now in real life the Jug will hit a speed in dive where its aerodynamic drag number will stop any more acceleration.


Good enuf for me for now/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 11:44 PM
Baloban wrote:

- For that matter, try a power-off glide test with any
- aircraft you please. This sim makes heavy fighters
- glide as well as competition sailplanes.

While I agree that the aircraft do seem to glide too well now, it should be noted that weight is irrelevant when it comes to glide performance. A fully loaded aircraft will glide just as far as an empty example of the same type. The heavier one will glide at a higher speed and come down faster, but the distance it will cover will be exactly the same as the lighter aircraft.


- As much as I love FB, I think Oleg is right in
- stopping development. IL-2/FB was a trendsetter and
- 3 years after its initial release it is still
- untouchable. Now it is time to push the envelope
- again by doing a proper physics model in "the next
- sim".

On this I agree completely. IL-2 was and is amazing. FB is even better, but it's been nearly 3 years now since it was released, and the code is likely a year or two older than that. It was written to take adavantage of the hardware available at the time. A lot has changed in 3 years, but there were certain limits and compromises that had to be made considering the target they were shooting for back then.

The next sim will be better, I've no doubt of that. The one following the next sim will be even better than the one before. It's how these things work.

There was a time SWOTL was the best looking, most accurate and incredible sim in the world. Now, most people who were looking at it for the first time would laugh at it and call it an "Air Quake" arcade game.

For the time, it was revolutionary and despite the simple FM and DM, brought many computers to a screeching halt as they tried to deal with it all. That doesn't mean it was poorly done or badly modeled, it was simply limited by what was available at the time.

Through FB, IL-2 has probably been taken about as far as it can. It's still an excellent sim, but I accept that it can not and will not be perfect. Ever.

The next project though, that can and will be a little closer, at least for 2-3 years, until it too seems limited and inaccurate.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:08 AM
BinaryFalcon wrote:
- it should be noted that weight is
- irrelevant when it comes to glide performance. A
- fully loaded aircraft will glide just as far as an
- empty example of the same type. The heavier one
- will glide at a higher speed and come down faster,
- but the distance it will cover will be exactly the
- same as the lighter aircraft.

You are so full of **** it's not funny. Please stop posting right now.

Member of A-20 Havoc whiners. Over two thousand nine hundred A-20s delivered to the USSR, be sure!

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:09 AM
Interesting view Baloban, and I agree with most of it. But I'm afraid not the age of the FM engine is the real issue. Just look at the performance numbers from Il2 Compare, and see how planes that actually were the best in a particular performance characteristic are the worst in FB. For example 109F4 should be the best climber at low altitudes in '42 and '43, and in FB it is surpassed by all russian planes from '43. In reality F4 had an initial climb of 22m/s compared to Yak1b, Yak9, Lagg3'43 and La5/5F which all had around 16.5m/s initial climb. In FB F4 has an initial climb of 17.5 compared with 19.5m/s for russian fighters? How can the best climber become the worst?

I do not suspect Oleg of bias, but certainly many people from his team are. He might or might not realize this, he's of course proud of his team achievements.

So no matter how good the new engine will be if the input data is of such questionable quality, then there are little chances to see an improvement over the current Maddox sim.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:22 AM
BinaryFalcon wrote:
"it should be noted that weight is
irrelevant when it comes to glide performance."

My experience in Hang Gliding is that up until a point when the increase in balast distorts the wings the glide ratio will remain constant while the speed for best glide increases with the addition of weight.


Weight is added to increase best glide speed. Best glide ratio remains the same.

On a day with no wind a heavy guy and a light guy take off from the same hill using the same glider. They will both land the same distance away from the hill, but the heavy guy will get down quicker.

But if the heavy guy is real heavy and takes off in a glider not rated for his weight then the wing is distorted causing a reduction in glide ratio.




JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:50 AM
Baloban wrote:

- You are so full of **** it's not funny.
- Please stop posting right now.


And the rush to embrace stupidity continues.

I could prove it all mathematically, but to be honest, it's more trouble than I'm willing to waste on you, especially since I'm in the process of moving at the moment and have all of my notes and textbooks packed away.

However, let me put it this way:

I have a Bachelor's Degree in Aeronautical Science, I am a Commercial Pilot with Instrument and Multi-engine ratings. I have been trained in and hold endorsments for high altitude operations (this includes, in addition to ground training, a "flight" to 25,000' in a hypobaric chamber to experience the effects of hypoxia first hand).

I have taken courses in physics, aerodynamics, aircraft performance, aircraft systems and components, global navigation, electronic navigation, meteorology, flight physiology, flight safety, and design and operation of gas turbine (ie "jet") engines, just to name a few.

In addition I've had all the training required to be an Airline Dispatcher, and I minored in Space Studies and Air Traffic Control.

So before you go any farther in spewing crap like the above, answer me ONE question.

Have you done ANY of that? At all?

However, I suppose I should thank you for proving my point that most of the people in here whining about things have no clue at all about the realities of what they're talking about, and how they refuse to learn when someone tries to help by explaining how things really work.

That one sentence summarized it all better than I could have ever hoped.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:00 AM
BinaryFalcon wrote:
- Baloban wrote:
-
-- For that matter, try a power-off glide test with any
-- aircraft you please. This sim makes heavy fighters
-- glide as well as competition sailplanes.
-
- While I agree that the aircraft do seem to glide too
- well now, it should be noted that weight is
- irrelevant when it comes to glide performance. A
- fully loaded aircraft will glide just as far as an
- empty example of the same type. The heavier one
- will glide at a higher speed and come down faster,
- but the distance it will cover will be exactly the
- same as the lighter aircraft.
-
-
-- As much as I love FB, I think Oleg is right in
-- stopping development. IL-2/FB was a trendsetter and
-- 3 years after its initial release it is still
-- untouchable. Now it is time to push the envelope
-- again by doing a proper physics model in "the next
-- sim".
-
- On this I agree completely. IL-2 was and is
- amazing. FB is even better, but it's been nearly 3
- years now since it was released, and the code is
- likely a year or two older than that. It was
- written to take adavantage of the hardware available
- at the time. A lot has changed in 3 years, but
- there were certain limits and compromises that had
- to be made considering the target they were shooting
- for back then.
-
- The next sim will be better, I've no doubt of that.
- The one following the next sim will be even better
- than the one before. It's how these things work.
-
- There was a time SWOTL was the best looking, most
- accurate and incredible sim in the world. Now, most
- people who were looking at it for the first time
- would laugh at it and call it an "Air Quake" arcade
- game.
-
- For the time, it was revolutionary and despite the
- simple FM and DM, brought many computers to a
- screeching halt as they tried to deal with it all.
- That doesn't mean it was poorly done or badly
- modeled, it was simply limited by what was available
- at the time.
-
- Through FB, IL-2 has probably been taken about as
- far as it can. It's still an excellent sim, but I
- accept that it can not and will not be perfect.
- Ever.
-
- The next project though, that can and will be a
- little closer, at least for 2-3 years, until it too
- seems limited and inaccurate.


Well said.......... very well said..

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:44 AM
An experiment was done when two objects were dropped from a very tall skyscraper simultaneously. One weighed ten times the other and the both hit the ground at the same time.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 03:06 AM
Baloban wrote:
We have seen in previous patches that Forgotten
- Battles is a hopeless mess of spaghetti code. The
- developers try to fix one thing and break something
- else in the process.
-
- As much as I love FB, I think Oleg is right in
- stopping development. IL-2/FB was a trendsetter and
- 3 years after its initial release it is still
- untouchable. Now it is time to push the envelope
- again by doing a proper physics model in "the next
- sim".

I agree with stopping development on FB if they cannot improve it anymore, but is this actually what is next? I have heard there will be another add on. Possibly a pay add on, who knows. I have heard a bit about another game. It would be nice to see each plane with its own airfile. Using parts of the same airfile for all the planes just isnt working. As bad as some claim CFS was it did have unique files for each plane. And anyone that has ever seen one of the files and or edited them had to be impressed with it. I hope they can get things worked out. I would rather see this game fixed v/s buying a third rendition of it.

...and once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,
for there you have been and there you long to return.
~leonardo de vinci

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 04:14 AM
Hey, at least you've got experience.

You probably learned that old saw about constant glide angles in training. It's close enough to reality give students something to go on, but it's not really true.

The coefficient of lift varies with Reynolds number (RN) and Mach number (M). Change the weight, and the required glide speed changes along with RN and M. CD varies as RN and M as well. CL and CD do not stay in proportion when you change speed, so the glide ratio varies.

Furthermore, centers of pressure move and moments change with variations in speed, causing trim drag and thus the overall drag to vary.

The glide ratio difference works out to less than 1 percent in your Cessna, but it makes a big difference at very high and very low reynolds numbers. Gliding at different Mach numbers also shows that the glide ratio changes quite a bit. You never needed to know that because chances are pretty good that you've done all your gliding below Mach 0.5.

There are no guaranteed forumlas for predicting how CL/CD changes as RN and M. Before computers the best approach was to pick some appropriate fudge formulas and to gather empirical data.

For instance, Glauert's adjustment for compressibility is
CL = CL_0 / SQRT(1-M^2)

Member of A-20 Havoc whiners. Over two thousand nine hundred A-20s delivered to the USSR, be sure!

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 05:12 AM
SBinaryFalcon wrote:
So before you go any farther in spewing crap like
- the above, answer me ONE question.
-
- Have you done ANY of that? At all?


Baloban you didn't answer the question ?



Baloban wrote:
-
-- You are so full of **** it's not funny.
-- Please stop posting right now.
-

Baloban,

You were also incredibly rude & immature. Please do not insult people.


http://idealab.snu.ac.kr/~hobbist/La-5FN/small/La-5FN-06.jpg