PDA

View Full Version : Is there any official information re: a new patch to fix wrecked FB?



XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:38 AM
Just curious - the most recent patch has wrecked the game in my opinion (plus many guys online in HyperLobby), some examples of wrecked bits:

1. Hurricane II's flaps broken - they were not simply up and down at all, they had variable levels of deployment, as proved by references in the pilots notes (i.e. set to 40 degrees, 30 degrees etc).
2. Hurricane II's stall is just wrong, although it is better in that it sharply drops a wing now, although it tends to be the same one.
3. Fires just keep burning.
4. 109's just aren't right!
5. I can land pretty much any aircraft at speeds in excess of 300kph, last night I got a Hurricane down at 330kph.
6. On take-off pretty much any aircraft can be kept on the ground, hitting speeds that would rip the gear off.
7. Hurricanes had lots of different loadouts, including rockets and bombs, where are they?
8. STILL no Spitfire - completely stupid if you ask me, leaving out one of the most famous planes ever made even though lots of people want it (one guy even offered a Geforce FX 5900 to anyone who produces it).

It's a shame that such a great game has been wrecked because of this patch, don't get me wrong - I love FB but some of the stuff in it now is just wrong. I really wish that Ubisoft had some serious competition in this market as, to me at least, it seems that they feel they can rest easy safe in the knowledge that there is no competition.

Just look at the situation surrounding the Lock On demo, hundreds of people, myself included, signed a petition and e-mailed every PR person listed on Ubi's website (around 20 or so) - not one of them replied, nice PR guys, thanks for nothing.

Furthermore, I wish that the flight models were 'open' so people like the 1% guys could work on them, at least we would approach reality that way.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Matt.

<TABLE CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 BORDER=0 BGCOLOR=#000839>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.airtattooshop.com/shop/images/Homepage/RAFBF_Logo.gif (http://www.raf-benfund.org.uk)</TD>
</TR></TABLE>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:38 AM
Just curious - the most recent patch has wrecked the game in my opinion (plus many guys online in HyperLobby), some examples of wrecked bits:

1. Hurricane II's flaps broken - they were not simply up and down at all, they had variable levels of deployment, as proved by references in the pilots notes (i.e. set to 40 degrees, 30 degrees etc).
2. Hurricane II's stall is just wrong, although it is better in that it sharply drops a wing now, although it tends to be the same one.
3. Fires just keep burning.
4. 109's just aren't right!
5. I can land pretty much any aircraft at speeds in excess of 300kph, last night I got a Hurricane down at 330kph.
6. On take-off pretty much any aircraft can be kept on the ground, hitting speeds that would rip the gear off.
7. Hurricanes had lots of different loadouts, including rockets and bombs, where are they?
8. STILL no Spitfire - completely stupid if you ask me, leaving out one of the most famous planes ever made even though lots of people want it (one guy even offered a Geforce FX 5900 to anyone who produces it).

It's a shame that such a great game has been wrecked because of this patch, don't get me wrong - I love FB but some of the stuff in it now is just wrong. I really wish that Ubisoft had some serious competition in this market as, to me at least, it seems that they feel they can rest easy safe in the knowledge that there is no competition.

Just look at the situation surrounding the Lock On demo, hundreds of people, myself included, signed a petition and e-mailed every PR person listed on Ubi's website (around 20 or so) - not one of them replied, nice PR guys, thanks for nothing.

Furthermore, I wish that the flight models were 'open' so people like the 1% guys could work on them, at least we would approach reality that way.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Matt.

<TABLE CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 BORDER=0 BGCOLOR=#000839>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.airtattooshop.com/shop/images/Homepage/RAFBF_Logo.gif (http://www.raf-benfund.org.uk)</TD>
</TR></TABLE>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:45 AM
Blah, blah, blah ...
The new patch will be released the 17th of November, 08:43 GMT. Hopefully it will fix the whiners for good. A sort of self-destruction mechanism comes to mind. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You knew there wasn't a Spitfire, when you bought the game. And still you bought it. Now it SEEMS there will be a future addon that included the Spitfire. So really: What are you being such a crybaby about? Do you know of any better flightsim? Then go play that one instead.

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:47 AM
Also, put this one also:

A LOT OF PLANES CAN TAKE OF BY THEMSELVES!!!


I get that "autolevel" was introduced mostly to help ex-CFS nubs, the Nubicane was used to lure them in...but hey, AUTO_TAKE_OFF planes are too much...don't you think?

Not enough? What about "SELF RECOVERING AIRPLANES"? Put a plane in a stall and don't do anything...in my tries in more than 80%, the planes recovered by itself...

<center><img src=http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~socrate/bazu11.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:56 AM
Thanks for the replies guys, Slush - you either aren't a 'hardcore' flight dude or you just don't understand! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
People like you amaze me, yes, FB _is_ wonderful but it's not without it's faults. It claims to be as good as it gets and, for lack of competition, it is. BUT - it isn't as good as it gets when it comes to flight modelling. As for a better _Flight_ Sim, thats easy - go and look at X-Plane, now _that_ flies like a real plane and here is why:

X-Plane reads in the geometric shape of any aircraft and then figures out how that aircraft will fly. It does this by an engineering process called "blade element theory", which involves breaking the aircraft down into many small elements and then finding the forces on each little element many times per second. These forces are then converted into accelerations which are then integrated to velocities and positions... of course, all of this technical theory is completely transparent to you... you just fly! It's fun!

X-Plane goes through the following steps to propagate the flight:

1: Element Break-Down
Done only once during initialization, X-Plane breaks the wing(s), horizontal stabilizer, vertical stabilizer(s), and propeller(s) (if equipped) down into a finite number of elements. The number of elements is decided by the user in Plane-Maker. Ten elements per side per wing or stabilizer is the maximum, and studies have shown that this provides roll rates and accelerations that are very close to the values that would be found with a much larger number of elements.

2: Velocity Determination
This is done twice per cycle. The aircraft linear and angular velocities, along with the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical arms of each element are considered to find the velocity vector of each element. Downwash, propwash, and induced angle of attack from lift-augmentation devices are all considered when finding the velocity vector of each element.
Propwash is found by looking at the area of each propeller disk, and the thrust of each propeller. Using local air density, X-Plane determines the propwash required for momentum to be conserved.
Downwash is found by looking at the aspect ratio, taper ratio, and sweep of the wing, and the horizontal and vertical distance of the "washed surface" (normally the horizontal stabilizer) from the "washing surface" (normally the wing), and then going to an empirical look-up table to get the degrees of downwash generated per coefficient of lift.

3: Coefficient Determination
The airfoil data entered in Part-Maker is 2-dimensional, so X-Plane applies finite wing lift-slope reduction, finite-wing CLmax reduction, finite-wing induced drag, and finite-wing moment reduction appropriate to the aspect ratio, taper ratio, and sweep of the wing, horizontal stabilizer, vertical stabilizer, or propeller blade in question. Compressible flow effects are considered using Prandtl-Glauert, but transonic effects are not simulated other than an empirical mach-divergent drag increase. In supersonic flight, the airfoil is considered to be a diamond shape with the appropriate thickness ratio... pressures behind the shock waves are found on each of the plates in the diamond-shaped airfoil and summed to give the total pressures on the foil element.

4: Force Build-Up
Using the coefficients just determined in step 3, areas determined during step 1, and dynamic pressures (determined separately for each element based on aircraft speed, altitude, temperature, propwash and wing sweep), the forces are found and summed for the entire aircraft. Forces are then divided by the aircraft mass for linear accelerations, and moments of inertia for angular accelerations.

5: Get Back to Work
Go back to step 2 and do the whole thing over again at least 15 times per second. Aren't computers great?

Oh, and as the other chap says, stalls and spins are just borked completely, the P-39 was legendry for being a real handful in a spin, it's sooo easy to recover in FB now it's a joke.

Can't see the wood for the trees? Don't let FB's beauty and 'only one-ness' cloud your judgement, it is great but it's not right. !

Matt

http://www.x-plane.com/images/MartinBalcomb9.jpg



<TABLE CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 BORDER=0 BGCOLOR=#000839>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.airtattooshop.com/shop/images/Homepage/RAFBF_Logo.gif (http://www.raf-benfund.org.uk)</TD>
</TR></TABLE>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:04 AM
Matt, how high can you take that B-777?

<center><img src=http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~socrate/bazu11.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:06 AM
dunno - thats from the X-Plane website http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - should imagine that it's true-to-life.

/m

<TABLE CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 BORDER=0 BGCOLOR=#000839>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.airtattooshop.com/shop/images/Homepage/RAFBF_Logo.gif (http://www.raf-benfund.org.uk)</TD>
</TR></TABLE>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:07 AM
sobolan wrote:
- Also, put this one also:
-
- A LOT OF PLANES CAN TAKE OF BY THEMSELVES!!!
-
-
- I get that "autolevel" was introduced mostly to help
- ex-CFS nubs, the Nubicane was used to lure them
- in...but hey, AUTO_TAKE_OFF planes are too
- much...don't you think?
-
- Not enough? What about "SELF RECOVERING AIRPLANES"?
- Put a plane in a stall and don't do anything...in my
- tries in more than 80%, the planes recovered by
- itself...

Tell you what: A real airplane is self recovering. And a real airplane would auto take off, as you call it.

Ever tried with facts? Go experience for yourself - or do some research. That would make you look a bit smarter than phrases like "Nubicane" do. (Actually that would be N00bicane, if you wanted to get it right).

/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:12 AM
ICAG_Bader wrote:
- Thanks for the replies guys, Slush - you either
- aren't a 'hardcore' flight dude or you just don't
- understand!

Right. I happen to have a life, and understand it's just a game. I haven't flown in a WW2 Bf-109 or anything, but when I look at real life performance data and behaviour in FB, I'm quite the happy little trooper. Sure, the LW birds aren't the supermachines they tend to be in more primitive flightsims, but I'm sure they're closer to reality.

But hey, if you want to bash FB because it doesn't use a specifik, nerdy game engine you happen to like then that's okay of course. Weird, but okay. What's not okay is the whining though. Can't you just go back to X-plane and leave the rest of us alone with a sim we're happy with?

Why did you even buy the game?

/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:12 AM
hi,

..bump...

a new PC combat flightsim on FM game engine like X-Plane is overdue..

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:13 AM
"Fires just keep burning"

Just like the crap whinning

<center>http://www.gamespy.com/legacy/top10/movievillains/hal9000.jpg </center><center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hotlips.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:21 AM
hi,

don't worry ..the market of new advanced 64 bit designed flightsim software is open..just at that moment new 64 bit processors are knocking at the door..to normal use in PC-dektops....

good news to all simmers ... there is place for many simconcepts



Slush69 wrote:
-
- ICAG_Bader wrote:
-- Thanks for the replies guys, Slush - you either
-- aren't a 'hardcore' flight dude or you just don't
-- understand!
-

- But hey, if you want to bash FB because it doesn't
- use a specifik, nerdy game engine you happen to like
- then that's okay of course. Weird, but okay. What's
- not okay is the whining though. Can't you just go
- back to X-plane and leave the rest of us alone with
- a sim we're happy with?
-
- Why did you even buy the game?
-
- /slush
-
- <img
- src="http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsda
- ge/files/Eurotrolls.gif">
-
- You can't handle the truth!
- Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:22 AM
Slush69 wrote:
-
- Right. I happen to have a life, and understand it's
- just a game. I haven't flown in a WW2 Bf-109 or
- anything, but when I look at real life performance
- data and behaviour in FB, I'm quite the happy little
- trooper. Sure, the LW birds aren't the supermachines
- they tend to be in more primitive flightsims, but
- I'm sure they're closer to reality.

Grow up, I 'have a life' too you know. You claim to look at historical data, why do you do that if you don't care whether it's true to life or not? I can understand little nuances being wrong, maybe the turn rate not being quite right say, but to be able to land at in excess of 300kph etc, is just stupid.

-
- But hey, if you want to bash FB because it doesn't
- use a specifik, nerdy game engine you happen to like
- then that's okay of course. Weird, but okay. What's
- not okay is the whining though. Can't you just go
- back to X-plane and leave the rest of us alone with
- a sim we're happy with?

Nerdy game engine? Why is that, is it because the X-plane flight model is good? We're getting into pot calling kettle black syndrome here. FB is supposed to be accurate and non-lookup based, the fact that X-plane uses another technique that is accurate is largely irrelevant. Personally I wish that FB would use blade element theory and have a plane maker, like X-plane, we would have the best of both worlds then.

Finally, when you say 'we're happy with', I think you are probably in the minority as lots of people aren't happy with it at the moment, I bet you never 'whine' eh? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif How are Ubi going to know what people think if they don't voice opinions?
-
- Why did you even buy the game?

Because I enjoy flight sims, as you do. There is nothing wrong with wanting to improve it and ask that it lives upto it's claims of realism - funny thing is, it was better before the patch! Bring on Lock On /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

ta,
Matt


<TABLE CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 BORDER=0 BGCOLOR=#000839>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.airtattooshop.com/shop/images/Homepage/RAFBF_Logo.gif (http://www.raf-benfund.org.uk)</TD>
</TR></TABLE>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:34 AM
hi,
let's talk about this point at simhq in different forum parts..

this forum is corrupted by many appologetic kids,Jonny and Juri Joysticks of uncle Oleg's team...

in respect...my two cents to them.. everyone knows best what he likes to game...



ICAG_Bader wrote:
- dunno - thats from the X-Plane website /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif - should
- imagine that it's true-to-life.
-
-

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:39 AM
ICAG_Bader wrote:
- Slush69 wrote:
-
- Grow up, I 'have a life' too you know. You claim to
- look at historical data, why do you do that if you
- don't care whether it's true to life or not? I can
- understand little nuances being wrong, maybe the
- turn rate not being quite right say, but to be able
- to land at in excess of 300kph etc, is just stupid.

More blah, blah. I didn't say I didn't care. So, you've been able to land a plane in FB at 300 khp, and that makes it unrealistic, because such a feat was impossible in real life? Well, was it?


- Nerdy game engine? Why is that, is it because the
- X-plane flight model is good?

Nope. Because you're getting all worked up on it, and bash FB for not using it. That's nerdy and highly irrelevant. Why don't you just stick to X-plane products then?


- Finally, when you say 'we're happy with', I think
- you are probably in the minority as lots of people
- aren't happy with it at the moment, I bet you never
- 'whine' eh?

You think? Well, I think you're wrong, which leaves us where?


--
-- Why did you even buy the game?
-
- Because I enjoy flight sims, as you do. There is
- nothing wrong with wanting to improve it and ask
- that it lives upto it's claims of realism - funny
- thing is, it was better before the patch!

It was better pre-patch? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Right ... easy solution: Go play it pre-patch then.

/slush


http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:42 AM
I got your patch

It's called the original IL2 Sturmovik

<img src=http://lafayettefederation.com/screenshots/repository/turo/tn-Numbaone.jpg>
"The Force is strong with this one." -What an ace said of RayBanJockey during a fight when he was still a newbie.
<a href=http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612109283>news update</a>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:48 AM
I can't be arsed with this, fact is - games not right and people aren't happy. Slush, if you are happy with it - great, now why don't you just let the people who aren't happy with it voice their opinions and you stay out of it pls.

No disrespect Slush, I value your opinion - my rationale for posting X-plane info was simply to show that there is a better _flight_ sim than FB, you said show me one and I did.

As for landing at > 300kph, try reading some pilots notes and you'll realise that it just would not happen. That is not to say that they wouldn't get down, but to do it without ripping the undercarriage off etc, thats just not realistic (good example is 109's having to take off and retract gear before 200kph to avoid wrecking the undercarriage, i.e. on the deck at that speed and you are in trouble).

my 2p's worth, please lets have a civil discussion about this, yes, there are people who are happy but they have no right to post saying 'blah blah, you whinning ______', some people genuinely aren't happy and simply wish to voice their opinion.

ta,
Matt.



<TABLE CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 BORDER=0 BGCOLOR=#000839>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.airtattooshop.com/shop/images/Homepage/RAFBF_Logo.gif (http://www.raf-benfund.org.uk)</TD>
</TR></TABLE>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:58 AM
ICAG_Bader wrote:
- Just curious - the most recent patch has wrecked the
- game in my opinion (plus many guys online in
- HyperLobby), some examples of wrecked bits:
-
- 1. Hurricane II's flaps broken - they were not
- simply up and down at all, they had variable levels
- of deployment, as proved by references in the pilots
- notes (i.e. set to 40 degrees, 30 degrees etc).

I believe they did this because the flap selector is on the right, making it awkward to use in combat. So now you can only drop full flap for landing. You're right that the flaps could be set to any angle from up to fully down, but it would have been difficult to do in combat - I suppose. However, how many other ac could easily drop some flap in the heat of combat? Dunno, but I find it a little hard to believe that the Hurri is the only one in FB where it might be difficult.

- 2. Hurricane II's stall is just wrong, although it
- is better in that it sharply drops a wing now,
- although it tends to be the same one.

Doing a simple power off stall, by easing back on the stick from level flight, it seems to match the figures for stall speed and wing drop in the Hurri 2 manual, both u/c & flap UP and u/c & flap DOWN. But see below.


- 5. I can land pretty much any aircraft at speeds in
- excess of 300kph, last night I got a Hurricane down
- at 330kph.

Never tried or noticed that. However, I did an approach the other night at exactly the speeds recommended in the manual and as I checked the descent just short of the threshold the left wing dropped and I crashed. I'd need to repeat paying even more attention to the speed (or record a track perhaps) but I'm certain I was well above the u/c & flap down stalling speed of 60-75 mph, (which I've proved in QMB, as stated above) having come down the approach at 110 mph.

Just checked my figs and actually I was a touch too fast - engine assisted approach speed is 95 mph or 105 flaps up. 110 is the speed when carrying stores. Like I say, I'd have to check to confirm it, but I don't think I should have stalled and crashed, especially as it seems I was slightly too fast rather than too slow.

- 7. Hurricanes had lots of different loadouts,
- including rockets and bombs, where are they?

Did the Soviets use the Hurri in the ground-attack role? I'm not sure, but it seem likely. The British weapons aren't modelled in the game - that might be the reason, but I would think Russian bombs could easily be dropped even if rockets couldn't be adapted to the Hurri. I don't really know why no stores, just trying to be generous to the developers here /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- 8. STILL no Spitfire - completely stupid if you ask
- me, leaving out one of the most famous planes ever
- made even though lots of people want it (one guy
- even offered a Geforce FX 5900 to anyone who
- produces it).

I believe it is coming. To be fair I don't recall them ever promising a Spitfire. Now that the game seems to be expanding beyond the eastern front (and I know lots of Spits served there anyway) it would be stupid to leave it out for too much longer /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif However, patience; we don't want a screwed up Spit do we? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- It's a shame that such a great game has been wrecked
- because of this patch, don't get me wrong - I love
- FB but some of the stuff in it now is just wrong.

I don't think the patch has 'wrecked' the game; it's another step in the right direction. The original boxed offering was a pretty poor effort, but - eventually - much has been put right, and, hopefully, the rest will be worked out in time.

Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 10:02 AM
Something gets fixed with each patch and something else gets broken.
It's obvious they are working on other projects and can't devote what we would like on patching this one once and for all.
It's a bit disapointing but it's indeed only a game and good fun still.
Just not to everyone's taste.
I've given up on flight modelling and just try to have fun online.
I bought Silent Hill 2 a couple of weeks ago.
I had tons of fun with Silent Hill 1 and resident evil on my playstation.
It turns out very unoriginal and all the graphics and movie scenes couldn't change the fact that it bored me.
So I played until I got so bored I stopped.
And the game had no bugs whatsoever.


<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 10:21 AM
ICAG_Bader wrote:
- Just curious - the most recent patch has wrecked the
- game in my opinion (plus many guys online in
- HyperLobby), some examples of wrecked bits:
-
- 1. Hurricane II's flaps broken - they were not
- simply up and down at all, they had variable levels
- of deployment, as proved by references in the pilots
- notes (i.e. set to 40 degrees, 30 degrees etc).

Bind them to a joystick axis or slider. You will get any available angle in any plane as far as I know.

- 2. Hurricane II's stall is just wrong, although it
- is better in that it sharply drops a wing now,
- although it tends to be the same one.

FB 1.0 was also called "wrong", now 1.11. Probably the performance lies somewhere in the middle of it all. Perform tests, record them, try to match them to actual historical data. This is your only possible chance at getting this "problem" fixed.

- 3. Fires just keep burning.

And they're very pretty :>

- 4. 109's just aren't right!

There are ways to go about doing something about this - I must have somehow missed your name admidst those doing tests and providing original data / test sheets for the various plane types.

- 5. I can land pretty much any aircraft at speeds in
- excess of 300kph, last night I got a Hurricane down
- at 330kph.

Wow - you're really good! I just tried it then and ended up doing a flipover. 300kmh sounds like a big number but I don't think it's grossly, massively in excess of a possible landing speed.

- 6. On take-off pretty much any aircraft can be kept
- on the ground, hitting speeds that would rip the
- gear off.

Start a new thread called "landing gear wheels overmodelled!" and see who chips in.

Possibly not the highest priority fix right now, I would think.

- 7. Hurricanes had lots of different loadouts,
- including rockets and bombs, where are they?

I'd love to get these too, actually.

- 8. STILL no Spitfire - completely stupid if you ask
- me, leaving out one of the most famous planes ever
- made even though lots of people want it (one guy
- even offered a Geforce FX 5900 to anyone who
- produces it).

Looking at the FB box .. I see a hurricane .. but no spit? Where should I look?



http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 10:58 AM
clint-ruin wrote:
- ICAG_Bader wrote:
-- Just curious - the most recent patch has wrecked the
-- game in my opinion (plus many guys online in
-- HyperLobby), some examples of wrecked bits:
--
-- 1. Hurricane II's flaps broken - they were not
-- simply up and down at all, they had variable levels
-- of deployment, as proved by references in the pilots
-- notes (i.e. set to 40 degrees, 30 degrees etc).
-
- Bind them to a joystick axis or slider. You will
- get any available angle in any plane as far as I
- know.

I can confirm this. I bound flaps to the MS FF 2 "throttle" thingie and on the hurry I can deploy any degree of flaps.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:38 PM
ICAG_Bader wrote:

- my 2p's worth, please lets have a civil discussion
- about this, yes, there are people who are happy but
- they have no right to post saying 'blah blah, you
- whinning ______', some people genuinely aren't happy
- and simply wish to voice their opinion.

Yeah, you're right of course. I just get so tired about the incredible amount of whining about a flightsim that's basically the best thing around.

And I tire of the fact that so many don't even bother to get their facts right or just make wild claims about Oleg being biased towards VVS planes. Funny thing is that none of them consider that they themselves might be biased and under the spell of the myth of Nazi wonderweapons and supermachines.

I'm not saying that your post was all that. But look at the reactions: Others couldn't do the same 300 kph landings as you. The Hurrican flaps seem to be modelled correctly, etc., etc., etc.

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:58 PM
Hi Slush,

I know where you are coming from, I guess it is just one of those contentious issues that people are passionate about. As for the landing and stuff, I'll make a track for you.

/m

<TABLE CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 BORDER=0 BGCOLOR=#000839>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.airtattooshop.com/shop/images/Homepage/RAFBF_Logo.gif (http://www.raf-benfund.org.uk)</TD>
</TR></TABLE>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:47 PM
Any Aircraft can take off under its power, I sometimes get AAIB reports nat work telling of yet another Muppet having hand swung his own prop realising the throttle is at full open and watching his pride and joy dissapear off into the wild blue yonder... it happens, thank fully rarely,


Also in regards to self levelling aircraft, well some Modern Russian fighters are actually equipped with a button that will do exactly that, restore the flight regime to straight and level in an emergency often pulling G that puts the pilot out for the count..


I remember the tale of the U2 that dissapeared over the US to be found months later stuffed into the side of a mountain in Columbia after the pilot died over the US

want afamous incident read on

The strange accident of the MiG-23



04 July, 1989.
From the Soviet airbase near Kolobzreg at the seashore of the Baltic Sea in Poland a MiG-23 took off for a training flight. After the take off the pilot, Colonel Skurigin realised that the afterburner of his plane stopped and the power of the engine begun to fall. The altitude at this time was about 130-150 m and the pilot believed that the descending aircraft is unable to fly any longer. Without turning the engine off the pilot ejected and landed safely with his parachute. To the great astonishment of the ground crew the position of the plane fixed and it flew away to the West. The autopilot kept the last direction of the plane. The aircraft was not armed but the ammunition for the 23 mm machine gun was onboard. The phantom plane left the airspace of the former East Germany and violated the West German airspace where it was intercepted and escorted a pair of American F-15s. As the F-15s didn't get permission to fire they let the aircraft fly away. France also alerted its Mirage fighters being in readiness with permission to fire if the phantom plane was dangerous for French built-up areas. Eventually it was unnecessary because after some 900 km the MiG-23 ran out of fuel and crashed in the area of Kortrijk city in Belgium ( NW of Belgium ). A house was ruined due to the crash and a 18 years old young man was buried under the ruins and died.

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 08:48 AM
Slush69 wrote:
- I'm sure they're closer to reality.
leave the rest of us alone with
- a sim we're happy with?


LMAO Slush ..... only the totally ignorant are happy with FB the way it is at the moment

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 09:03 AM
WUAF_Badsight wrote:

-
- LMAO Slush ..... only the totally ignorant are happy
- with FB the way it is at the moment
-

That's easy to prove wrong: I'm happy with it.

cheers/slush


http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 09:17 AM
ICAG_Bader I couldnt agree more, being right on here you get called a whiner so your right whiner http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif BTW do you have a SP/LSA license?




http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 09:21 AM
Just curious: So which of his 8 points do you agree with? Them all?

cheers/slush

http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 12:47 PM
ICAG_Bader wrote:
- 1. Hurricane II's flaps broken - they were not
- simply up and down at all, they had variable levels
- of deployment, as proved by references in the pilots
- notes (i.e. set to 40 degrees, 30 degrees etc).

This was the same before the patch dude.


- 3. Fires just keep burning.

I think the developers would call this a feature NOT a bug!

- 4. 109's just aren't right!

Yeah really well thought out, that one. Well done!


S! Simon.
<center>

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Download the USAAF campaign folder here (http://www.downloadcounter.com/cgi-bin/download.pl?username=James_Jones&account=705).

http://extremeone.4t.com/images/USsig.jpg
<font color="#000000">It's my attitude not my aptitude that determines my altitude.</font></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 01:58 PM
yeah 'Extreme_One' - whatever.



http://www.geekfix.com/shamone.jpg</img>



<font face="verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2" >__________________

<font size="1">Pentium 4 3.06Ghz 800Mhz FSB Hyperthreading | Abit IC7 Max 3 | 256Mb Radeon 9800 Pro |
2 x WD Raptor 10,000rpm S-ATA's (RAID 0) | 1Gb OCZ PC4000 Dual Channel Gold Series DDR |
Coolermaster 'Black Widow' | Zalman 7000-CPU Cooler | Track-IR</font></font></p></p>


</p>

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 03:12 PM
ICAG_Bader wrote:
- Thanks for the replies guys, Slush - you either
- aren't a 'hardcore' flight dude or you just don't
- understand! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
- People like you amaze me, yes, FB _is_ wonderful but
- it's not without it's faults. It claims to be as
- good as it gets and, for lack of competition, it is.
- BUT - it isn't as good as it gets when it comes to
- flight modelling. As for a better _Flight_ Sim,
- thats easy - go and look at X-Plane, now _that_
- flies like a real plane and here is why:
-
- X-Plane reads in the geometric shape of any aircraft
- and then figures out how that aircraft will fly. It
- does this by an engineering process called "blade
- element theory", which involves breaking the
- aircraft down into many small elements and then
- finding the forces on each little element many times
- per second. These forces are then converted into
- accelerations which are then integrated to
- velocities and positions... of course, all of this
- technical theory is completely transparent to you...
- you just fly! It's fun!
-
- X-Plane goes through the following steps to
- propagate the flight:
-
- 1: Element Break-Down
- Done only once during initialization, X-Plane breaks
- the wing(s), horizontal stabilizer, vertical
- stabilizer(s), and propeller(s) (if equipped) down
- into a finite number of elements. The number of
- elements is decided by the user in Plane-Maker. Ten
- elements per side per wing or stabilizer is the
- maximum, and studies have shown that this provides
- roll rates and accelerations that are very close to
- the values that would be found with a much larger
- number of elements.
-
- 2: Velocity Determination
- This is done twice per cycle. The aircraft linear
- and angular velocities, along with the longitudinal,
- lateral, and vertical arms of each element are
- considered to find the velocity vector of each
- element. Downwash, propwash, and induced angle of
- attack from lift-augmentation devices are all
- considered when finding the velocity vector of each
- element.
- Propwash is found by looking at the area of each
- propeller disk, and the thrust of each propeller.
- Using local air density, X-Plane determines the
- propwash required for momentum to be conserved.
- Downwash is found by looking at the aspect ratio,
- taper ratio, and sweep of the wing, and the
- horizontal and vertical distance of the "washed
- surface" (normally the horizontal stabilizer) from
- the "washing surface" (normally the wing), and then
- going to an empirical look-up table to get the
- degrees of downwash generated per coefficient of
- lift.
-
- 3: Coefficient Determination
- The airfoil data entered in Part-Maker is
- 2-dimensional, so X-Plane applies finite wing
- lift-slope reduction, finite-wing CLmax reduction,
- finite-wing induced drag, and finite-wing moment
- reduction appropriate to the aspect ratio, taper
- ratio, and sweep of the wing, horizontal stabilizer,
- vertical stabilizer, or propeller blade in question.
- Compressible flow effects are considered using
- Prandtl-Glauert, but transonic effects are not
- simulated other than an empirical mach-divergent
- drag increase. In supersonic flight, the airfoil is
- considered to be a diamond shape with the
- appropriate thickness ratio... pressures behind the
- shock waves are found on each of the plates in the
- diamond-shaped airfoil and summed to give the total
- pressures on the foil element.
-
- 4: Force Build-Up
- Using the coefficients just determined in step 3,
- areas determined during step 1, and dynamic
- pressures (determined separately for each element
- based on aircraft speed, altitude, temperature,
- propwash and wing sweep), the forces are found and
- summed for the entire aircraft. Forces are then
- divided by the aircraft mass for linear
- accelerations, and moments of inertia for angular
- accelerations.
-
- 5: Get Back to Work
- Go back to step 2 and do the whole thing over again
- at least 15 times per second. Aren't computers
- great?
-
- Oh, and as the other chap says, stalls and spins are
- just borked completely, the P-39 was legendry for
- being a real handful in a spin, it's sooo easy to
- recover in FB now it's a joke.
-
- Can't see the wood for the trees? Don't let FB's
- beauty and 'only one-ness' cloud your judgement, it
- is great but it's not right. !
-
- Matt

I'm with u all the way on this one....

Hot Space

An Antelope is not just a Sex Toy - But it also host's Bondage Party's on a Friday Night!!!

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 03:55 PM
ICAG_Bader wrote:
- BUT - it isn't as good as it gets when it comes to
- flight modelling. As for a better _Flight_ Sim,
- thats easy - go and look at X-Plane, now _that_
- flies like a real plane and here is why:
-
- X-Plane reads in the geometric shape of any aircraft
- and then figures out how that aircraft will fly. It
- does this by an engineering process called "blade
- element theory", which involves breaking the
- aircraft down into many small elements and then
- finding the forces on each little element many times
- per second. These forces are then converted into
- accelerations which are then integrated to
- velocities and positions... of course, all of this
- technical theory is completely transparent to you...
- you just fly! It's fun!
Snipped rest of the X-plane info...

Bader, it is not my intention here to bash X-Plane which is a first-rate simulation, but the method it uses for flight modeling is not suitable for a historic simulation. You can do much better with other methods, and in fact, most professional flight sims use tables or aerodynamic equations or a combination of both in their physics model. X-Plane is extremely interesting as a research tool and is especially good for the simulation of aircraft for which actual flight test data is not available, but it has some very serious limitations when your aim is to reproduce exactly the flight behavior of an existing aircraft with known performance.

Blade element theory is about as simplified as you can get in aerodynamic theories. It makes a lot of assumptions. It is usually used in the modelling and design of propellers, although even with those the tendency these days is to use other theories such as vortex or panel methods and then to go to CFD after the initial design/analysis since blade element theory cannot predict many of the more subtle aerodynamic effects.

As one example, in the rest of your post you mentioned the way 2D airfoil data is integrated into the analysis system. Right there you lose a lot of detail in your model since you completely loose all cross-flow effects. There are a host of other limitations also, such as a reliance on Prandtl-Glauert compressibility corrections, no way to deal with compressibility effects if any part of the flow actually goes supersonic (although it has a simplified linear model to deal with the fully supersonic case), prediction of more subtle drag effects such as cooling drag, prediction of pressure drag produced by bluff bodies such as antennas, canopies, etc, dealing with separated flow regions, etc. Despite these limitations, X-Plane still comes close by adding some empirical info over the calculated coefficients, but you will still need some very careful fudging to actually get to a good representation of known flight performance.

Besides that, even with blade-element theory to handle the main part of the aerodynamics, you still need accurate engine models, special codes for post-stall and spin behavior, and codes to reflect aeroelastic effects such as loss of control surface effectiveness at high speeds. In short, the X-plane type approach is not suitable for a WWII sim unless each model is tested and fudged to get it close enough to the historical behavior. But since you need to do that, you could just as well have started out with aerodynamic equations and/or tables. I don't think X-Plane is a good example of a "better" sim for this application.

Regards,
Oryx

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 04:14 PM
Oryx raised the combined IQ of the GD forum by a good 30 points when he wrote:
- As one example, in the rest of your post you
- mentioned the way 2D airfoil data is integrated into
- the analysis system. Right there you lose a lot of
- detail in your model since you completely loose all
- cross-flow effects. There are a host of other
- limitations also, such as a reliance on
- Prandtl-Glauert compressibility corrections, no way
- to deal with compressibility effects if any part of
- the flow actually goes supersonic (although it has a
- simplified linear model to deal with the fully
- supersonic case), prediction of more subtle drag
- effects such as cooling drag, prediction of pressure
- drag produced by bluff bodies such as antennas,
- canopies, etc, dealing with separated flow regions,
- etc. Despite these limitations, X-Plane still comes
- close by adding some empirical info over the
- calculated coefficients, but you will still need
- some very careful fudging to actually get to a good
- representation of known flight performance.

The thing that amazes me is that some people here are so insistent that mathematicians and engineers are no better than a layman at coding in how a given airplane should fly.

Truly the phrase "they don't know what they don't know" was designed for such people.

Thanks for your words Oryx, it's nice to get people in here who can phrase their opinions better than "it sucks" or "it rocks".


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 04:38 PM
Your right clint-ruin. that was infomative an much better than "your view s*ks"

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid79/p9141f290fa1c1c59a2dc382c77af21f3/fb1a8321.jpg


Lead Whiner for the P-47-30 and Hvars

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 04:47 PM
Hi Oryx,


Assuming historical minutiae like "the way 109's really flew" to be something less concrete than absolute truth, afloat somewhere in the ether waiting to be collected for verbatim translation into computer simulation, I've a few questions:

How comprehensive is the historical data?

How much of what there is of it gets lost in the translation to computer simulation?

I realize it's a lot, and I realize it's properly a philosophical inquiry to begin with, but I'm asking for an estimation, presented in layman terms, of how close to "reality" do you figure these sims can aspire?

I enjoy reading your posts.


Cheers,


Greg

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 08:07 AM
Extreme One ..... loved the USA campaign

now as far as the Hurri was in FB v1.0 ........

it had THREE ( 3 ) flap positions

2 is a myth

they were abel to be set to " Positions "

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 11:41 AM
WUAF_Badsight wrote:
- now as far as the Hurri was in FB v1.0 ........
-
-
- it had THREE ( 3 ) flap positions
-
- 2 is a myth
-
- they were abel to be set to " Positions "
-
-

Yes correct.

And the WEP ('boost control cut-out') also worked with 2nd supercharger gear (S ratio) in 1.0. Now it only works in M ratio where it correctly increases MAP to +14 psi at sea-level. In S ratio that should go to +16 psi, but there is actually no increase above the normally available +12 psi. The only indication is a momentary 'kick' on the MAP gauge when WEP is deselected.

As S ratio works normally it does give more boost at altitude, so S ratio with no WEP delivers more MAP than M ratio with WEP. But lower down M ratio and WEP appear to give more power than S ratio with WEP (as the WEP doesn't seem to do anything). I reckon the dividing line is somewhere around 12-16 000 feet.

In short, WEP (boost control cut-out) does not work in 2nd supercharger gear (S ratio) post-patch.

Kernow
249 IAP