Jump to content

19//Moach

Members
  • Content Count

    551
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

332 Excellent

2 Followers

About 19//Moach

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Langley, near Vancouver BC

Recent Profile Visitors

896 profile views
  1. Well then, an explanation and possible fix may have been unearthed! Here's what it's all about: This problem also affects X-Plane, and here is what's going on: This is a thread all about it: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/54641-delayed-wash-and-the-woobling-thing/ I honestly believe this is indeed what we've been experiencing all along. Just as it does in X-Plane, this same cause could easily be yielding the same effects in this series.
  2. I think this may have hit the nail right on the head. I too have always found x-plane to feel "squirrely" in a very similar way to BoS - something the more "parametric" sims such as FSX, (as opposed to geometrically-driven such as this one), somehow managed to avoid. And in that particular regard, these perhaps less scientific, symptomatically-modeled sims ended up feeling tighter and a bit closer to the real thing. This 10~20th of a second delay he mentions just might be the root cause of the infamous and ever so elusive "wobbles" -- That specific time frame also happens to roughly match the observed period of strange instability (over-rotation, rubber-banding, call it what you will) we experience in BoS. It may well be the root cause and possible solution to what I (and I suppose many others) see as the major single issue regarding flight modeling in this series. To sum up what's being mentioned in the video, and how it applies to the "wobbles" issue in X-Plane (and quite possibly here too): Downwash on the tail caused by increasing lift with AoA imparts a proportional force on the tail, pushing it down. This causes a well known moment of instability, where such a rotation acts to exaggerate itself in a manner similar to a feedback loop. More AoA = more downwash = more force pushing down on the tailplane = even more AoA; And so on... However, the time required for the downwash air deflected by the wing to reach the tail, is taken as infinitely short (instantaneous) in the sim. This causes an unnaturally large reaction to changes in AoA. In reality though, due to the non-infinite airspeed of the plane, this downwash change takes a fraction of a second to reach the tail. Such a seemingly insignificant delay is enough to noticeably dampen the resulting pitching motion, forcing the nose to remain closer to the freestream velocity vector throughout the maneuver. The airplane thus feels "tighter" on the controls. This would be especially noticeable at lower airspeeds, when the delay between cause (downwash deflected by wing) and effect (downwash pushing on the tail) is largest. Curiously indeed, this is exactly the behavior observed in the sim, where the wobbles are most apparent when flying near stalling speeds. Simply put: The short delay between an AoA change and the resulting downwash reaching the tail provides a dampening effect on the angular motion of the aircraft. According to Austin Meyer, this was the cause of the very similar wobble issue found in X-Plane. It is not any stretch of logic to assume it could be the cause of the very similar wobbles in this simulator as well. That's the theory, at least. And here's Austin's simple fix in a nutshell: Subtract the delta-downwash (pitch rate * immediate downwash * (distance from wing to tail / airspeed)) from the instantaneous downwash received by the tail on each simulation step. This is the formula written on the board as seen on the video. This effectively reduces the immediate forces on the tail by trimming off the excessive downwash (which isn't supposed to have gotten there yet) during AoA changes, without need for tracking wake shedding and all the associated complications of that complex method.
  3. Allow me to add something (possibly) constructive here. I have noticed yesterday, once a mission had ended, and the message "mission will end in a minute" or similar had come up, the stuttering had all but completely stopped. It could be then, that whatever causes this phenomenon is not really in the netcode itself, but perhaps it has more to do with the mission logic. This strikes me as a plausible guess due to how once a mission stopped tracking objectives and stuff, the problem simply went away. And yet, at that same short interval, the multiplayer environment (sync'ing of aircraft positions and such) still appeared to have been active. It is also worth noticing that in that same server, while the mission was "young" (having just started), the stuttering was either not present at all or so mild it could not have been noticed at my present FPS. The server had been about >80% full throughout the whole mission. It's player population did not seem directly related to the noticed amount of stuttering. But it was only after some time into the mission, well after most players had finished joining back in, that the problem gradually grew. First into noticeable, then all the way into performance-crippling shortly before it ended, abruptly, once the Germans had completed the process of thoroughly kicking our allied asses. In that short time between mission end and server "lights-out", there was a marked absence of the stuttering which gradually escalated up until that point. Thus implying a possible connection between mission logic and the stuttering problem. This would explain a few things, such as why the devs cannot seem to replicate the problem, and also why some servers have it more than others. Plus, the variation in severity might account for the seemingly random set of settings variables reported to have some effect on it - by coincidence, if not by actual relation. Multiplayer servers aren't exactly clean trial grounds for scientific experimentation. Of course, from symptoms alone, this is just an educated guess. But well, who knows? Maybe a guess might lead to something. Only one way to find out...
  4. I always thought it'd be nice to have a typing-free system to send frequently used messages, such as reporting enemy contacts and such. Cliffs of Dover has a similar system on the alt-key menu, yet there too it is not actually useful for communicating to other players. It would be nice to have some similar menu where you could quickly send your team a message without having to let go of the stick to type it. Unhanding the flight controls to type "HELP!" with a 109 shooting off your tail isn't really very good for the upkeep of your plane.
  5. This is my face - I've been using it for over three decades now and still haven't had any notable issues! You may notice this is the exact same face on my avatar. This is because I do not actually own a vintage WW2 flying cap, alas, but I do know my way around photoshop
  6. Click-Pits make sense for sims like DCS, where there are just so many controls to operate, that mapping each and every one of them to a key combination just isn't practical. For sims like this, or even Cliffs of Dover, where a certain degree of convenient simplification is present, (mostly removing excess complexity from trivial operations that add little or nothing to the experience) there really is no need to have such a feature installed. It would add indeed, very little.
  7. Very true. I once saw a video of one airworthy P51 on youtube, and the proud owner remarked on how he removed the six gun openings from the wings, and this new unbroken leading edge had given the plane some 8 knots less on its stalling speed. That only goes to show, any P51's flying today can't be exactly a match for their war-time flying characteristics.
  8. You could have the cockpit on one of the booms... but then you'd have to land on a single wheel I'm sure the legendary Kelly Johnson had thought of all the advantages of that design when he came up with it. I mean, this is the same guy who later gave us the SR-71 and so many wonderful aircraft Actually, another thing that goes behind the engine in the P38 pods, is the all-important turbocharger. I suppose having it there instead of the pilot and guns more than pays off for the extra drag of that perfectly streamline central gondola. Curious fact, the same nose shape of the P38 was later reused on the F-80 Shooting Star
  9. It's indeed a known quirk of the sim. It used to be much worse, no doubt. As a fellow developer, it strikes me as the effect of excessive moment-of-inertia, coupled with insufficient rotational damping. Yet this may be due to the subtle little things that even the finest mathematical approximations of flight don't take into full account. That is, there may be nothing wrong with the flight model itself in an academic sense, except that theory and reality don't always meet exactly half-way. Slowly but surely the devs are getting to the bottom of it, and we're all confident they won't let go of that bone until it's been chewed all the way through. This team is just as obsessed about aviation as the lot of us. *tips hat*
  10. One reason the Mustang is so much faster is that it features what's known as "Laminar Flow Airfoils" This was somewhat revolutionary at the time, while nowadays all modern jetliners have airfoils like that. At a superficial glance, one might not even notice any difference, but it is quite an advancement from the conventional wing design, see: Another thing that greatly helped the P51 achieve it's astounding speed and range, was that it made full use of the Meredith Effect in it's radiator design. That means, the whole cooling structure underneath, not only negates its own parasitic drag, but in certain conditions actively contributes to net thrust. The P51's radiator thus becomes a little ram jet, as energy is added to the air inside the duct in the form of (normally wasted) heat from the engine. That's why the '51 is so fast. So fast indeed, that it is faster even than it's modern private jet namesake, the Citation Mustang. Obviously also it is much faster than the sports car of that same name, and vastly beyond the top speed of the four legged mammal all of them are named after.
  11. people's attention span isn't lower - on the contrary, really.... the problem seems to be that corporations insist on treating customers like retards who cannot remain longer than 5 minutes on the same activity This is really due to the excessive reliance those companies place on their marketing departments. they read behavioral patterns from data which is often collected unscientifically and thus infer trends which are either inaccurate or completely wrong when compared to player preferences. It's easy to think everyone is a channel-switching moron when you take for instance, people's browsing behavior on social media. None of that stuff is really too interesting, so naturally users tend to boringly flip by each item in a disinterested manner - this is not because their attention span is low in general. data acquired from these networks only indicates the kind of mindset users demonstrate when interacting with material that has been intentionally authored and collected to be viewed in exactly this fashion. There is no reason why those same users cannot also spend hours focusing on things which simply do not register in online trend analytics (most really interesting things don't) But corporate decision-makers don't really know or care much about this - so they listen to their marketing "focus groups" and whatnot and assign full credibility to whatever so called "trends" are reported. Then they force their designers to make creative decisions based upon such arguably valid concepts.... The result is the urban myth that people today have no attention span. I, myself am diagnosed with the full-blown adult edition of good old Attention Deficit Disorder. I mean, not the "every kid has it" kind that's so popular nowadays, but the real thing, which is genetic and does not go away after you're done with puberty. Even so - I do not in any way feel compelled to switch focus nowhere near as fast as corporations seem to think everyone does. In fact, I feel mostly annoyed when faced with things that assume I would be so easily distracted. People today, if anything, are (on average) much more intelligent and focused than even one generation ago - we got the internet to thank for that. gone are the days of the MTV kids who had to put up with whatever mass media shoved down their throats. Today each individual picks entertainment that is uniquely suited to their interests. the moral is: behavioral "trends" derived from user behavior on social media tend to be more often than not, completely unrepresentative of real behavior of the same users while engaged on anything they really do care about. Someone please run tell all the big companies what they're doing wrong, before any more of them even consider the possibility that someone out there does NOT "see through the charade"
  12. We are indeed short of options on good sims lately... War Thunder currently holds the place of what should have been this generation's big-budget flightsim. But alas, it was ill-conceived in the ways of what I came to call: C.A.N.C.E.R. (that is: Commercially Abusive Novelty Coin Exchange Routine) * skipping long discourse here - not quite in the mood for enthusiastic righteous speeches right now Long story short, War Thunder is a game I would have payed up to 200 dollars for, due to the high quality production and massive scope it has.... However, the C.A.N.C.E.R. business model is something that I strongly advocate must be made illegal as soon as possible. It is a breech of consumer rights everywhere and an offense against capitalism itself. These games profit by forming local monopolies in which corporations greedily control both supply and demand of their purpose-built captive market.... *sigh* let's not go that way - I have a book to write about this, one of these days Anyhooze, WT is perhaps mildly entertaining for as long as the initial addiction-inducement freebies last. After that, playing "against the house" while continuing to make a point of honor not to ever feed a penny down the greed-gullet quickly becomes intensely frustrating and one finds something better to do. Eventually, many will end up here, if they're interested enough in aviation. But there is certainly a wide gap in the involvement curve between "casual pay-to-win" and "detail-oriented hobby level simulator" these days well... I am currently working on something that might address part of the simulator shortage you describe - but right now I won't say too much about it. Just that it's not really gonna be any direct competition for IL2 (rather a different approach) Anyways, more about that later. I will certainly make it abundantly obvious once there's something worth showing. In the meantime, if you're looking for a mouse-and-keyboards type flightsim that can be run on a laptop while waiting for stuff (like for a real airplane) - there is always Geo-FS: https://www.geo-fs.com/index.php It's mostly a civilian sim, but there are some fighter planes too - and even though there aren't any guns, there are people who do mock dogfights there all the time (often to the annoyance of airliners) Cheerz
  13. Hey! that video features me in the role of "guy waiting in line with coke bottle" just around 0:35 - lolz Jason and ShamrockOneFive also appear chatting in the background at a point later on. I guess we can collect our multi-million performance dues with our hollywood agents later on. Seriously, that motion rig is every bit as awesome as it looks! Cheerz
  14. to be fair, you wouldn't actually hear your own sonic boom from the cockpit... this because the "boom" isn't really a sound that happens when you cross mach 1 (unlike popularized by the classic NovaLogic F22 series) - the so called "boom" is really what a stationary observer gets, plus free broken windows, when a supersonic object passes nearby. The burst of sound is really the compressed mass of every sound wave transmitted in the direction of travel arriving together simultaneously with (or some time after) the aircraft itself. In the cockpit, the cabin air is relatively stationary, so the pilot hears the engine sounds quite normally, transmitted mostly through vibrations of the airframe itself. This is just like how you can hear your own voice through the bones in your skull (for those of us equipped with skulls, at least) even while wearing heavy-duty earplugs. It could sound a bit muffled and strange perhaps, as metal transmits frequencies differently from air, but there would be no discernible "boom" whatsoever to be heard inside the cockpit of any supersonic vehicle. Just the steady droning of the engines This is the same reason why astronauts can hear their rockets firing even though there is no air and thus, no sound in space. Of course, all of this adds a lot to the surprise of landing to find a lot of angry people of higher rank than yourself demanding explanations about who's gonna pay for all that broken glass
×
×
  • Create New...