Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

413 Excellent


About 19//Moach

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Langley, near Vancouver BC

Recent Profile Visitors

1186 profile views
  1. Crimson Skies! An oldie, but it's never been satisfactorily replaced.... It still runs well enough on Windows 10, requiring only an easily downloadable patch and running it in XP compatibility mode. Once that's worked out, it runs straight up like it's the early 2000's. I have it on my laptop, and fly with a PS3 controller (which was far trickier to setup than the comparatively ancient game)
  2. New version just out! https://www.motorwings.net/updates
  3. Good pilots can make a decent landing even from a bad approach. Real pilots, go around.
  4. Build Mk1c is now available! See changes and download here.
  5. This is what I've been working on since last year: I've found it to be most efficiently described simply as: "Kerbal Space Program + Crimson Skies" It is an early access venture, with emphasis on early, since this is the first generally presentable state I have managed to achieve since starting out on it. Though to be fair, even though I "officially" started mid last year, the larger half of that time was spent cobbling together a PC to work from, plus a myriad unrelated, yet delaysome troubles that had to be worked either out or around.... Long story. Anyways. Now it is in a state where showing it to people is possible without them having to also be programmers in order to understand what's going on. It is naturally, still all very rough, as is to be expected of all such ongoing developments. The project is still so "young" that new updates can be released in a matter of every few weeks, or even days sometimes. In the other hand, the "to-do" list remains considerably longer than the post-it sized one marked "done" For the time being, the game is offered free. This because right now, it is more important to get people involved with the project than anything. Even if our budget is only so vast as the amount of loose pennies found under my seat cushions. Soon, a Pre-Order option will be available, and as per the usual early-access development model, that'll be the best possible cost-benefit deal for anyone buying the game, as free updates will follow the one-time purchase all the way until completion. The plan is to incorporate and set up shop as a proper game dev studio in the near future. This cannot be afforded in my present situation, even though some rather unusual conditions allow me to work on the game as a full time occupation, if only by myself. Moving on to full-scale production will require either a gradual build-up of Pre-Orders as a crowd funding effort, or finding someone willing to invest as a business partner while the opportunity is still up for grabs. Either option or combination thereof should be workable, however the latter would certainly allow for things to happen far more quickly. Anyways. That's my game. Our game, really. This is all about the player community, and the invaluable support that can be gained that way. Enjoy!
  6. Well, I'm working on a new Make-your-own-plane flight simulator - it's something like KSP + Crimson Skies, basically. It's called "MotorWings" Totally early access, of course - I'm pretty much just started on it last year (which was mostly spent cobbling together a PC to actually work from... long story) Everything in it right now is placeholder, though the flight dynamics are quite well advanced for such an early stage. May as well check it out - It's free to download and play in these very early versions.... I should probably make a thread about it
  7. Move your mouse, or better, add a second mouse for your left hand. My setup has a trackball on the left, so I can click around cockpits in FSX and stuff - It could be also used for view control in IL2, If I didn't have TrackIR for that... I use it this way on KSP though, it works better than relying solely on the joystick hat. If you must have head tracking, you may try FaceTrackNoIR - It's free and requires nothing but a webcam. But then again, it is also only as good as your webcam setup allows it to be. Works best with very strong light against your face, but I gather your piloting may not be top notch in those same conditions...
  8. I used to have this problem some time ago - and I found that the best solution for it in the end was good old practice. Your brain eventually gets used the idea of flying while looking everywhere but forward, and once it does, it becomes second nature to tell where the nose is without having to rely on any cues besides the view picture itself. It helps if you keep the zoom control very handy, like on a joystick hat, axis, or a similar pair of controls that require but a flick of the thumb to operate without having to stop anything else. If you tunnel-sight yourself for more than a few secs at a time while turning, you may lose mental track of where the nose is. (a problem unique to flight simulation, where your body isn't necessarily fixed to your head by the usual neck arrangement) In my experience, I've decided that any additional cues, like HUD overlays and whatnot, serve mostly to increase information overload and confusion. But then again, that's me. Not necessarily the same applies to you or anyone else... But I'd advise that if you're finding yourself losing track of the nose too much, it's probably because you're tunnel-sighting yourself a bit. Keep the zoom mostly open, and close in only when you need to get details on your target. That way, you should have a far better notion of which way is forward and what's there coming rapidly to meet you. TrackIR does help - but only after it's own little learning curve. (in a day or two it becomes totally second nature) The same reasoning applies regardless of view control method - zoom out, and your awareness goes up, zoom in, and you start getting lost. With practice, you can spend more and more time zoomed in without losing the nose, but take it slow and don't push it more than necessary. If you feel like you're not completely on top of things, zoom out until you have it again.
  9. You're not alone, mate. I've spent many hours obsessing about a better way to get a burning fuel/air mix to push an axle around. Most solutions are either quite inefficient and/or work only in the magic land of theory, where all seals are perfect and design tolerances are always zero. There are many fascinating ways to build an engine - yet only some of them actually make for good engines, and only some of those are actually more efficient than something that already exists, and almost all of those are not commercially practical to build.... And in the end, just about every kind of combustion engine loses to an electrical one, as soon as a battery with energy/weight density greater than that of gasoline becomes industrially viable. (already possible in labs, I read, but some ways to go before our cars can run on it) As for your enginized air pump, here's something to feed our curiosity: https://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatWankel.htm (nerd-sniping warning)
  10. This was a problem I recall having fixed on my FSX install - there was a modded .dll for solving just that same problem (that there was too much ground friction) Afterwards, things got more realistic, such that very few planes would not start creeping forward at idle power as soon as brakes are released. BoS is well known to have an excessive amount of ground friction. It's like all tires are inflated to less than half the pressure they should take. I'm pretty sure a lot of the steering difficulties and the resulting ground loops is due to the simple fact that you need so much power to start rolling. The spitfire we have seems to taxi more or less steadily at an uncanny 30%-ish throttle position. It is almost uncontrollable if you make large power changes. Alas, these are a natural consequence of what it takes to start rolling. You gotta start it off with as little power as possible, moving the throttle up in very careful increments, observing for movement at each small step as RPM settles in. Once you "find the spot" with the throttle, you'll find taxiing gets a lot easier. But yes, this should indeed be considered a bug. IRL, just releasing brakes (or very little throttle) would suffice to start moving on any civilized surface. Any patch of ground that requires THIS much power to roll out from should have no right to call itself an airfield.
  11. The British had the practice of using what they called a "Residue Belt": Basically, they put different color tracers on the last 30 or so rounds of the ammo belts, so the pilot could tell he was running out. No need for fancy gauges, aka: something else that need repairs. This has the theoretical tradeoff that a very clever and observant enemy could also be able to tell that his shooter was running low. However, none of my targets in CloD (where residue belts are simulated) has ever mentioned noticing that I was low in this way. I suppose they had other priorities in mind at the time... I don't recall ever reading or hearing about anyone actually going "Aha! Red tracers! He's almost out of ammo! Now he'll see..." about their pursuer in real (or simulated) combat, especially not of also being in a position where it proved of any advantage to know this. Thus I reason it is safe to conclude, the brits made a sensible decision towards simplicity of design there.
  12. I think I see where the thinking goes here (maybe) One should understand that every airfoil has a specific "Angle of Zero Lift". This varies a lot depending on the airfoil's shape, particularly it's camber amount. This angle does not change with respect to airspeed. Nor does it vary under any normal (non-transonic) flight conditions. Not unless the shape of the wing is itself changed somehow, such as by way of extending flaps or by courtesy of German bullets blasting random bits off of it. What does change with speed, is how much force this airfoil generates at any given angle beyond this zero-lift point. This force is ultimately determined by the well known equation of lift. (where AoA plays as one of the many factors of Cl) In purely theoretical flight conditions, as an aircraft accelerates towards infinity (and theoretically does not explode somehow), it's lift would increase such that a smaller and smaller AoA can provide enough force to keep it level. (that is: the exact same force to counter the weight of the airplane) This reduction of AoA is asymptotic, that is: With speed increasing towards infinity, (only possible in theory, that magical place where your wings never fall off) this Level-Flight Angle approaches ever closer to our Zero-Lift Angle, yet it would never actually reach it. Like an infinitely wide bowl filling up, the water will never reach the rim as it moves towards it ever more slowly. This is an asymptote. In (still very theoretical) "practice", that airplane would become more and more sensitive to AoA changes, as the gap between the angle which produces no lift at all and that which produces enough to balance out all weight gets smaller. Note, however: The angle at which no lift is produced does not change. (Not in our perfect theoretical airspace, where the speeds of sound and light are casually waved away and told to sit quietly where they don't bother anyone.) It is the resulting lift force that changes in regard to airspeed and whatnot other factors. That is to say: Flying at the Angle-of-Zero-Lift would be analogous to multiplying lift by zero. You could fly as fast as you want and get no lift at all at that angle. Any other angle would get you some non-zero amount of lift, including even negative lift. (fancy flying upside down? ) Of course, a real plane would most likely come apart at every available seam plus several new ones way before that happens - That is what that red line in the IAS gauge is there for. And naturally, different kinds of airfoil (such as those in different kinds of airplane) have a different angle where no lift results. This is primarily why you see such difference in the AoA required for level flight at constant airspeed. Does it make any sense, or have I made things worse again?
  13. I could not tell after some trials of both "normal" and "alternate" visibility modes whether or not there is any advantage to either that makes middle-distance spotting any less unreasonably difficult. Seems it affects mainly contacts that are further away from the trouble zone, such as from 8km and further. Closer in than that, where lie our present woes, this setting doesn't appear to have any distinctively noticeable effect. Jason has also specifically mentioned that no changes have been made to spotting closer than the "10km bubble" with the introduction of the new system. Could it be that we're just now seeing a difficulty that was always there, yet now has been highlighted by the fact that an "invisible" contact had been visible before it came near enough to fall back on "how it was before". This would imply that near-distance spotting has ALWAYS been just this bad. Except that before, one would not be at all aware of this unseen contact at all before it popped right up. Thus this apparently "new" problem was really present all along, Only it was hidden behind a larger issue which made its detection too illusive to provide any meaningful practical insight, -- This is just a theory... What does have a large effect however, is the in-game Anti-Aliasing setting. With this at anything other than 4x, I have confirmed (by enlarging screenshots) that planes at 1~6km can have over 50% of their surface lost "in between" pixels. With 4X AA settings, this happens quite less severely. And that makes dogfighting somewhat manageable, if one deliberately target-fixates on a single enemy target and works the zoom carefully to avoid the contact becoming too small on the screen. Without head-tracking, this is only possible against easy AIs in single player. I haven't tried it in VR for lack of needed hardware. I've pointed out before that a software/rendering solution to this is perhaps not a practical approach. It could be more effective (and far easier) to work around the problem by having aircraft LOD meshes made progressively more bloated (3dsMax Push Modifier) as they become less detailed. That would not alter the actual proportions of the aircraft themselves much, but it would ensure that far-out LODs have enough cross-section area to avoid having their surface pixels ignored. This should be particularly effective in cases of wings viewed edge-on. Edit: I just read that it seems we'll have Deferred Rendering coming up sometime soon. Being aware of what this is and what it can do for us, I would not be surprised if it proved to have a very large effect on this issue, since it basically changes all the rules for how graphics get from sim to screen. Thus, my advice right now would be to wait and see how this turns out. It could make the problem go away. Or it could make it so much worse that its nature and cause become self-evident. Or not. Who can tell? Wait and see.
  14. That would never happen. There's a world of difference between hacking into a game for one's own personal use, or doing so in order to go out ruining the fun for a bunch of people online. Hell, even I have used countless cheats in games myself, in single player.(never had much patience with fixing a proper budget on SimCity) - But that's the thing that separates harmless fun from potential crime: The harm is not using cheats in games, but in doing it against other real players without their consent. (there are even hack-v-hack multiplayer games, though I've never really had any interest in that - but anyways, as long as all are on the same page, this should be perfectly ok) But anyone who's had the misfortune of playing against a suspected cheater knows just how massively it ruins the entire experience. The effects vary with the severity of the unfair handicap imposed on the victims, but it easily goes as far as to turn an awesome game into an entirely unpleasurable activity. If not easily avoided, such as by switching to a better kept server, this usually ends with players looking for something else to play. That is a serious problem which costs billions of dollars to the gaming industry every year. The matter is is not that there is cheating in general, But that some choose to do it against a server full of people. Analogously, one might reverse-engineer his own car to learn how it works, and this would be perfectly fine. Now, go and reverse-engineer your neighbor's car without asking him first. See how he likes it. Point is: It's wrong when it's done to other people.
  • Create New...