PDA

View Full Version : New Flight Model?



Haukeye1
07-10-2004, 08:32 PM
I know this has probably been covered, but I've obviously missed it. My question is; Will the flight model be changed in your upcoming Pacific game??? Thanks.

Haukeye

Haukeye1
07-10-2004, 08:32 PM
I know this has probably been covered, but I've obviously missed it. My question is; Will the flight model be changed in your upcoming Pacific game??? Thanks.

Haukeye

heywooood
07-10-2004, 10:13 PM
The flight models will be tweaked slightly by all accounts we've read so far... to allow for open canopies and the resultant minimal drag effect they will cause, but a total and radical reworking of all flight models? Why?

The new planes will have folding wings and tailhooks also, but there should be no need to alter the flight characteristics for those things..

If thats what your rather unspecific question is about I hope that answers it.



http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/ac_32_1.jpg
"Check your guns"

sugaki
07-11-2004, 01:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Haukeye1:
I know this has probably been covered, but I've obviously missed it. My question is; Will the flight model be changed in your upcoming Pacific game??? Thanks.

Haukeye<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The physics engine will basically be the same as FB from what we've been told and from what was demoed at E3. Tweaks may be made to the actual FMs of different planes, but it'll still run on the same engine.

VW-IceFire
07-11-2004, 08:00 AM
...which is pretty darned good overall!

Expect more substantial changes when they come out with the next generation of sims with Battle of Britain.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Bull_dog_
07-11-2004, 09:56 AM
I have to agree with IceFire...pretty darn good overall.

There are some glaring inaccuracies in a few planes as I understand them to be, but the FM is very complex and well done in 90% of the aircraft and Oleg keeps fine tuning them so the more iterations of patches, the better aircraft seem to get imho.

There are deficiencies around energy modelling and torque in the engine itself but I got a strong inclination that will be better adjusted in BoB.

It took me awhile to gain an appreciation for the complexity of the FM...particularly flying online in Wonderwoman view was the real eye opener for me. I saw guys do stuff in certain aircraft that amazed me (CEM and 109's grabbed my attention right away). In WW view there is rarely suprise so tactically speaking you literally have to outfly your opponents and the pilot/aircraft dichotomy really shows its skill or lack thereof under those conditions.

I went back and flew CFS 2 after this experience and haven't touched it since...the FM's and the AI for offline play in AEP more than offset the poor mission building capability of FB/AEP and I haven't touched it since...even with PF coming out.

I don't know how long you've flown AEP/FB and how much you fly online but if you want to understand the intricacies of the FM and watch a good P-38 pilot regularly take out Fw A-5's and 109G-6's or a 109K best a La-7 that is where you got to go and put your time in learning.... the trick is to not get caught too far in the "my plane is porked and your's is uber" and understand that MOST aircraft have some strengths and weaknesses against aircraft of similar periods...yes there are a couple of ufo's flying but they are the exceptions not the rule.

I suspect that axis planes are gonna have a tough time in PF beyond 1942 if the aircraft are as good in PF as they are in AEP...it was so in real life too. Jap planes could out turn american planes and in some cases out climb but that was about it...they were structurally weak overall and suseptible to battle damage where Allied aircraft were not. Don't expect FM to dictate anything other than that and I suspect most Jap planes will light up easily under .50 cal fire and will have a difficult time shooting down Grummans, Jugs and lightnings

This game is gonna rock!

BSS_Vidar
07-11-2004, 10:13 AM
I'm hoping FM's from FB/AEP A/C are not just plugged into PF airframes. I hope a 'sair flyies like a 'sair, and a Hellcat flies like a Hellcat, not a 190 or 109.

I agree the FM in FB/AEP is good, but the roll rates in some aircraft are excessive. Also Aileron input is at times capable of keeping an aircraft from tipping over in an over-speeded taxiing turn which I found quite funny.

BSS_Vidar

sugaki
07-11-2004, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I went back and flew CFS 2 after this experience and haven't touched it since...the FM's and the AI for offline play in AEP more than offset the poor mission building capability of FB/AEP and I haven't touched it since...even with PF coming out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aside from the engines that never overheat, I think CFS2 captures the planes' characteristics better than FB/AEP.

Flight physics are a lot more cookie-cutter in FB/AEP. Twin-engined, single-engined have basically the same characteristics--actually all the airplanes have essentially the same characteristics, except with different thresholds. Also, all stalls turn into snap stalls, controls cannot get significantly more sluggish at higher speeds as they should, both of which CFS2 did well. Only thing about CFS2 was that you could keep flying at 100% throttle and never see your plane overheat. Was good to see a game finally deal with it in a more detailed way.

-Aki

Flygflottilj16_Sulan
07-12-2004, 07:35 AM
I think CFS2 has very simple and arcadish flightmodels, I believe the cherecters of planes are exagurated in that game.
Sugaki you say the planes feel almost the same way only with different thresholds in FB/AEP, I agree you feel more difference in charecter to different real planes.
Consider that you "feel" alot more of a real plane overall, also they are not flown with the same stick, stick-profile and cockpit(your computer-room).
I bet getting the planes to "feel" in a game/sim is really hard while still keeping to the real performances...

sugaki
07-12-2004, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think CFS2 has very simple and arcadish flightmodels, I believe the cherecters of planes are exagurated in that game.
I bet getting the planes to "feel" in a game/sim is really hard while still keeping to the real performances...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not talking about some nebulously sensational feeling, I'm talking about the actual characteristics. A level stall and snap stall have nothing to do with how it feels, but how it plays. Same with dive characteristics--the zero simply doesn't get sluggish enough, has nothing to do with some abstract notion of "feel."

FB is far more immersive in its feeling than CFS2, wing buffet, shakes, oil splattering on canopies, creaks as increasing stress is applied to the airframe--it feels a lot better.

As far as CFS2 being "arcadey," what specific flight modelling traits do you observe to make you come to this conclusion? FB's a lot more arcadey in my opinion.

ASH at S-MART
07-12-2004, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Haukeye1:
I know this has probably been covered, but I've obviously missed it. My question is; Will the flight model be changed in your upcoming Pacific game??? Thanks.

Haukeye<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There is an old saying.. If it aint broke dont fix it.

Now dont confuse that to mean I think the IL2 FM is perfect.. I am just one of the few here that realises that a sim is and never will be perfect

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
07-12-2004, 12:47 PM
outta the box the cfs2 fm was ghastly - the corsair's controls stiffened at 250k and the zero stayed nimble to at least 350 (knots) 1% fms are good - I used the wells models - but, while the differences between planes were certainly pronounced, the fms are nowhere near as fluid and dynamic as in fb - they have a blocky feel that, while less rigid than the janes ww2 fms, lack the dynamic range and nuance of the FB fms.

BSS_Vidar
07-12-2004, 03:37 PM
CFS2's and FB FM's have their weaknesses and their strengths. The "instant trim" on a slider modeled in CFS2 allowing excessive angle of attack with complete control and no departure is horendus. For instance... A Corsair in G-Lock in a 400mph dive can't pull out with the elevator, but if you pull the slider back on the elevator trim, it pulls out easily. A 3' by 6" trim tab should not have that kind of pitch authority. The main inaccuracy in FB/AEP is the inputs are way to snappy and quick. Roll rates are way too fast. If planes flew like that in real life; physiologicaly, the pilot would be worn to a frazzel. CFS2's roll rates are very well done.

I've said this before, Ailerons should not have enough authority on the groud, that they could stop a plane from tipping over during a ground-loop or high speed turn in a taxi. FB/AEP has this flaw which obviously translats in the air as excessive roll rate. I'll bet alot of the hesitations we see during on-line flying would be reduced if these roll rates where knocked down to where they're suppose to be. Computers sometimes have to catch up with these excessive roll rates, therefore causing freezes/hesitations during on-line game play.

BSS_Vidar

Yellonet
07-12-2004, 04:02 PM
Interesting.. roll rate comparison between P-36, P-40, Hurricane and Spitfire. Wouldn't be too hard to compare to the Planes in FB.

http://members.tripod.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/usaaf/rollrate.pdf

I found the comparison at this nice site:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/index2.html


- Yellonet