777 FM Validation

[=IRFC=Jorri]

That I agree with you that they would repair broken parts before flying a captured plane.

 

But they would not rebuild the plane from the ground up to make sure it's representative of a factory-fresh example.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

That I agree with you that they would repair broken parts before flying a captured plane.

Ok, so your changing your statment that no one said the planes were broken, got it

 

.

 

But they would not rebuild the plane from the ground up to make sure it's representative of a factory-fresh example.

Well that it is a good thing that no one ever said that!

[=IRFC=Jorri]

Anyway, moving on:

 

There are two things that go into flight models for Rise of Flight in the Digital nature engine. One of them is of course source material and data. Especially for the German side, this is greatly lacking for WWI.

 

The other thing, is the way flight models work in the DN engine, at least for Rise of Flight. A virtual model (not the 3D model you see) of the plane is built, and it is given a large number of parts. Then each part is given physical properties...like aerodynamics, centre of gravity, things like that.

 

Then the whole of these parts is taken to create the full plane and its physical properties.....and its performance is based on realtime calculations.

 

Creating a flight model is not just taking the known performance data of a plane and putting it into the engine. They model the plane, and then see what comes out as a result. Then they have to match it to the data they believe, by tweaking parts of the flight model.

 

The data that An Petrovich is most interested in to make a flight model, is not the plane's speed at a particular altitude, or roll rate. What he wants to know is what propeller pitch it has, what wing profile, things like that. Then he builds the plane, and the output is performance data.

 

So if a plane doesn't perform correctly, they can actually argue that the source performance data we are comparing to, is wrong, and the ROF model is correct.......strangely enough. And sometimes they could even be right.

 

It's something else when one plane in the sim is faster than another, but every pilot anecdote suggests otherwise. Which is also the case for some planes in ROF.

 

But how to fix the flight model? Changing one aspect of it, will also mean another part of the performance changes...unwanted side effects. So which part could be wrong?
 

For example, the SE5a in Rise of Flight. It was alwaysa  formidable Boom and Zoomer, because it just refused to lose any energy. But in a dive, the propeller would windmill and the engine overrev....while in reality, it was known as a formidable diver.

 

Now the SE5a FM is fixed, partly by giving it a coarser prop. It can dive like hell now, but its no longer as capable at boom and zooming. Those who wanted to see the flight model fixed at first, were now complaining that their favourite ride was ruined. Yet the fix brought the performance of the plane even closer to known performance data of the SE5a than the old version.

 

Just some examples and some info on how things work with ROF flight models. Do with it as you please.

Ok, so your changing your statment that no one said the planes were broken, got it

.Well that it is a good thing that no one ever said that!

 

None of us said the planes were broken. But if they were, I'm sure they fixed them? Stop talking in circles. The fact that bits might have been broken and then fixed, is irrelevant and not what either Gavagai or me are talking about. Please, look at the whole picture and don't be so obsessed by that one point.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Creating a flight model is not just taking the known performance data of a plane and putting it into the engine. They model the plane, and then see what comes out as a result. Then they have to match it to the data they believe, by tweaking parts of the flight model.

Ah so you agree with what I allready said.. Good to know! S!

[=IRFC=Jorri]

You can give yourself a medal

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

You can give yourself a medal

I get a medal for you agreeing with me? Cool!

[gavagai]

.I think chuck said it best when he said it is the man not the machine!

 

That's probably the most mis-applied quote in virtual air combat.

 

The big issue for WW1 air combat is that German Albatros and Pfalz pilots simply declined to engage more maneuverable Entente aircraft (like the Sopwith Camel) without some kind of tactical advantage, e.g. altitude.  Without an airspeed advantage that would not have been possible, and Camels would have simply run down their opponents and outmaneuvered them.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

That's probably the most mis-applied quote in virtual air combat.

Maybe so.. but not in this case IMHO!

 

.

 

The big issue for WW1 air combat is that German Albatros and Pfalz pilots simply declined to engage more maneuverable Entente aircraft (like the Sopwith Camel) without some kind of tactical advantage, e.g. altitude. Without an airspeed advantage that would not have been possible, and Camels would have simply run down their opponents and outmaneuvered them.

Interesting.. But I am sure how big the issue was depends alot on who is saying it.. All in all not sure what it has to do with 777 providing hitechcreations like documentation or methods for the user to collect test data during flight.. But interesting none the less

[4./JG53_Wotan]

They are not going to give up their data - they did not do that in Il-2, CloD, or RoF. Even if they did the complaining won't stop. In Aces High they gave basic flight data for the planes in their game and people still complain.

[Faustnik]

Aceofaces, do you really need caps, bold and double exclamation marks to make a point? Not to speak of aggressive posturing. It is very tiresome to read and doesn't support your arguments in the least, just the opposite.

I have TBI and have a very difficult time to read. AceOfAces use a lot of spacing and caps when writing. His writing helps me.

 

(tramatic brain injury)

Edited December 15, 2012 by Faustnik

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

They are not going to give up their data - they did not do that in Il-2, CloD, or RoF.

I think I figured out where you are confused!

 

Allow me.. What do you mean by data?

 

The data that you said Oleg said they paid big money for..

 

Because I think you are confusing the output 'data' of the 6DOF flight model with input 'data' of the 6DOF flight model.. Two very different things!

 

As for the inputs, the ones that I and Jorri have been talking about, I would not expect any sim maker to give out that information.

 

In that it does require a lot of work to come up with those values, as Jorri noted 777 even goes as far as to create a 3D model, not for visual effects, but to obtain the 6DOF input parameters like drag, wing area, mass, cg, moments, etc

 

As for the outputs, the ones I alluded to in my first post, as in the standard performance values, those I would expect every sim maker to give out that information.

 

In that how is anyone to know if the plane is being simulated correctly if they don't know what the target values are of the 6DOF flight model.

 

That and as I already pointed out in the P38 example, there can be cases where the sim maker is ignorant or does not have the best real world data.

 

.

Even if they did the complaining won't stop. In Aces High they gave basic flight data for the planes in their game and people still complain.

Well than it is a good thing that no one every claimed it would stop!

 

Flight simmers are proof that you can never please everyone all the time!

 

But having the standard performance data documented does reduce the amount and type of complaining

Edited December 15, 2012 by ACEOFACES

[4./JG53_Wotan]

This FM debates in most games - including CloD do not revolve around how the aircraft perform in game compared to how the designer intended, They revolve around whether or not the aircraft ingame match the perforamnce of the "real thing".

 

The "real thing" is subjective depending on the data set its compared to. That is where the arguements arise.

 

Since you compared Aces High as a benchmark you should know that at different times in its development the charts put out by HTC did not match the ingame performance of their aircraft.

 

They did not release that stuff in Il-2, they did not do it in CloD, they did not do it in RoF and they most likely won't do it in BoS. There is no compelling reason they should.

 

If fact the ambiguity created by the lack of in game detail allows them the ability dismiss folks who think the "know".
 

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

You have yet to answer my question..

 

That being 'What do you mean by data?'

 

Are you referring to the inputs to the 6DOF or the outputs from the 6DOF?

 

But in good faith, as I wait for you to answer said question I will address your latest post

This FM debates in most games - including CloD do not revolve around how the aircraft perform in game compared to how the designer intended, They revolve around whether or not the aircraft ingame match the perforamnce of the "real thing".

Agreed!

 

.

The "real thing" is subjective depending on the data set its compared to.

 

That is where the arguements arise.

Sometimes yes..

 

When there is more than one set of data too choose from..

 

As I already noted the P-38 case.. But for the most part that is not the case, that is to say there is typically only one valid real world case to go by, thus no subjectiveness required.

 

I will say this, there are variants in aircraft that does require the sim maker to 'make a call' from time to time. That is to say they may have real world performance data on a certain variant of the plane, but not another similar variant, thus the sim makers have to make a calculated (read flip a coin) decision as to how the changes in that variant affect the performance values.

 

.

Since you compared Aces High as a benchmark

Just to be crystal..

 

Not saying hitechcreations is a benchmark flight sim.. No! What I am saying is hitechcreations is a benchmark when it comes to providing the data they use as the target values/goals of their 6DOF flight model outputs.

 

.

you should know that at different times in its development the charts put out by HTC did not match the ingame performance of their aircraft.

Which is not surprising in that most flight sims require a patch to tweak the flight models..

 

.

They did not release that stuff in Il-2, they did not do it in CloD, they did not do it in RoF and they most likely won't do it in BoS.

Actually Oleg did via a 3rd party who produced a product called IL2Compare

 

.

There is no compelling reason they should.

Disagree

 

It is compelling, it is just not easy to do. That and in doing so it requires more of the flight sim maker to ensure his flight models are obtaining the values they documented.

 

.

If fact the ambiguity created by the lack of in game detail allows them the ability dismiss folks who think the "know".

Ah so you agree with me than.. Good to know!

 

Sad as it is, as I already noted, not documenting the standard performance values does give the sim maker more of a gray area to work in. Kind of along the lines of the simulated varied engine performance that has already been mentioned.

 

The way I see it I think 1C and 777 flight models are as good if not better than the hitechcreations flight models.. Thus they should not be afraid of documenting the performance values and methods for the user to collect data during flight to double check the values.. If anything they should be bragging about these aspects of the game!

 

In summary, the more we talk the more you seem to be agreeing with what I have been saying. Thus I think the only difference you and I really have is the difference between what you assumed I was saying and what I actually said. A PERFECT example of that is your very first contribution to this thread where you not only got what I said wrong, but arse backwards from what I said. So for future reference, I would encourage you to read what I said fully at least once, if not twice before you comment on it.. Because as it turns out, for the most part, you agreeing with what I have said. S!

 

[4./JG53_Wotan]

Who are you? And why shoudl I answer you?

 

And Oleg did not do "Il-2 Compare"...

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Who are you? And why should I answer you?

I am the guy you have been talking to for several post now..

 

And you should answer me because the more you clarify your statements the clearer it becomes that you are in agreement with what I already said!

 

.

And Oleg did not do "Il-2 Compare"...

See, here is yet another PERFECT example of why you should read what I say more than once..

 

In that I never said Oleg did IL-2Compare!!

 

Below I quoted, FOR YOU, what I actually said

 

.

Actually Oleg did via a 3rd party who produced a product called IL2Compare

Does this 2nd read of what I actually said help you understand why you were so wrong in saying I said Oleg did IL2Compare?

 

If not, feel free to read it a 3rd time!

 

Good Luck!

Edited December 15, 2012 by ACEOFACES

[=IRFC=Jorri]

777 have for RoF not released all sources (although some sources are listed at the store page of every plane), but when the lead engineer was reviewing the FM of the SE5a there was a very public discussion and sources were shared in between the developers and the community:

 

(it's a long and winding discussion but maybe interesting if you want to know more about FM in DN engine, and the guy who is responsible for them.)

 

http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=351&t=22802&hilit=effect

 

Every post made by An.Petrovich is gold, too bad he doewsn't post very often - or lucky, because he is probably spending his time in better ways

 

http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=1979&p=22073&hilit=effect#p22073

Edited December 17, 2012 by hq_Jorri

[Zmaj76]

 

 

Every post made by An.Petrovich is gold, too bad he doewsn't post very often - or lucky, because he is probably spending his time in better ways

 

 

 

Pitty he stopped a year ago when he did last FM revision.....

Edited December 17, 2012 by Tvrdi

[Bearcat]

This is another one that is being watched but for now it will stay open.

[FlatSpinMan]

Can you not debate a little less vehemently, AoA? And ease up on the quoting.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Can you not debate a little less vehemently, AoA?

That depends a lot on the person I am responding to

 

.

And ease up on the quoting.

No, no chance of that.

 

For several reason, 1st it is not against the rules, 2nd it is a style of writing that I find helps me keep and others keep track of what is/was said.. For an example of which I speak see Faustnik post..

 

With that said, did you have anything to say with regards to the topic at hand?

 

Other than to crique my style of writing that would have been better sent via PM IMHO.

 

If yes, than please share!

 

If not, than please make use of the PM system provided in this forum when you feel the need to tell me something that is off topic.

 

Thanks in advance! S!

 

777 have for RoF not released all sources (although some sources are listed at the store page of every plane), but when the lead engineer was reviewing the FM of the SE5a there was a very public discussion and sources were shared in between the developers and the community:

 

(it's a long and winding discussion but maybe interesting if you want to know more about FM in DN engine, and the guy who is responsible for them.)

 

http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=351&t=22802&hilit=effect

 

Every post made by An.Petrovich is gold, too bad he doewsn't post very often - or lucky, because he is probably spending his time in better ways

 

http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=1979&p=22073&hilit=effect#p22073

Thanks Jorri!

 

At a glance that looks like some good info, Ill have to read it in more detail when I get home