Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Higaluto

BOB

Recommended Posts

So i ordered BOB because why in the world should i not. Some of my all time favourite planes will be there made by this awsome company.

 

But to my question, about the P47 and a discussion on another forum from another company that are also making a flight sim in the same time periode with almost all the same aircraft types. But they have a very hard time finding the documentation on the JUG that are needed to make a realistic flight model on the aircraft, in fact they have used a few years now, how will 1C go about this, i guess we will get most of the planes in 2018.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alleged "lack of data" on the part of "that other sim" sounds like a stall tactic to me. Trying to placate a fan base that has been looking for this aircraft for more than two years now. There are several surviving P-47's, so I have trouble seeing how flight model can be as large a hurdle as "they" are making it out to be.

 

They need to abandon their WWII ventures and stick to the good thing they had going, imho. Besides, if BoX keeps going the way it is, it's going to stomp any competition into the ground.

Edited by Scottvdken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i ordered BOB because why in the world should i not. Some of my all time favourite planes will be there made by this awsome company.

 

But to my question, about the P47 and a discussion on another forum from another company that are also making a flight sim in the same time periode with almost all the same aircraft types. But they have a very hard time finding the documentation on the JUG that are needed to make a realistic flight model on the aircraft, in fact they have used a few years now, how will 1C go about this, i guess we will get most of the planes in 2018.

 

I wouldn't worry too much. If the dev's were not confident, that they could do the plane set in BoBP justice, then I doubt that they would have announced them.

 

I'm happy with everything this team has given us so far, so I have no reason to think they will let us down now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't worry too much. If the dev's were not confident, that they could do the plane set in BoBP justice, then I doubt that they would have announced them.

Exactly. Just look at the case with the Japanese planes for Midway. These devs are not going into BoBP without documentation.

 

That other game's excuses also sound a bit odd to me. The P47 doesnt sound like a plane that would be hard to find documentation for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The P47 doesnt sound like a plane that would be hard to find documentation for.

 

It's not, but it wouldn't be odd at all if this other sim was DCS.

Edited by Y-29.Silky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a dubious excuse, at best. Historical data will never be complete, and where it exists it is frequently contradictory. Sometimes developers have to make judgement calls, if they are to release anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not, but it wouldn't be odd at all if this other sim was DCS.

I didnt want to name names, but you could be very right.

 

What they said was that most of the documentation was destroyed after the war, it was out there but harder to find. I dont know..

 

I was a backer back in 2013 and been waiting for the P47 since then, maybe 2018 will be te year i can fly one of my all time favourite aircrafts, and maybe some day in TWO different simulators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Americans will destroy their data? They won the war, Germans were desperate and they did destroy their data

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About a year ago I suggested to DCS they may want to contact the "Flying Heritage Collection" out of Evert, Wa.  This collection has a flyable P47D and I am sure that the owner of FHC Paul Allen, who's net worth is over 20 billion, would not have a flyable P47D with some very good documentation for the 47.  

 

I was thanked for my information but was also informed that it was felt at that time that DCS was good with what they had. Ok :huh: .

 

As I was visiting the FHC web site this evening I started looking at their collection to see if any flying aircraft had be added since my last visit in 2015.  What a wonderful surprise that indeed they did a "Mosquito".  Wow, I need to make plans for a trip up there this summer :biggrin:

Edited by Taxman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Museums are surprisingly unfriendly at cooperating with flight sin developers, unfortunately. Jason has mentioned the difficulty in even getting access to the cockpit of some models without extremely expensive insurance payments beforehand.

 

1CGS and Eagle Dynamics have different methods in module creation, that's all. The devs on this side of Moscow are more comfortable extrapolating the information through calculations if a specific parameter is missing, whereas ED go by the book and nothing else.

 

Fw-190 flight model history for example shows a case where the 1CGS approach initially did not account for a specific parameter that was listed only in obscure documentation; the P-40 model is a good showcase on how they used the expertise of the engineer-programmers to correctly adjust drag to match real performance in turns despite lack of documentation on it; Belsimtek's F-5 is made entirely through paper data and matches every single quirk of the actual aircraft; ED's P-47 is where this approach fails.

 

Something ways something skin a cat. For WW2 aircraft it's obviously more productive to not rely entirely on 70 year old documents.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Museums are surprisingly unfriendly at cooperating with flight sin developers, unfortunately. Jason has mentioned the difficulty in even getting access to the cockpit of some models without extremely expensive insurance payments beforehand.

 

1CGS and Eagle Dynamics have different methods in module creation, that's all. The devs on this side of Moscow are more comfortable extrapolating the information through calculations if a specific parameter is missing, whereas ED go by the book and nothing else.

 

Fw-190 flight model history for example shows a case where the 1CGS approach initially did not account for a specific parameter that was listed only in obscure documentation; the P-40 model is a good showcase on how they used the expertise of the engineer-programmers to correctly adjust drag to match real performance in turns despite lack of documentation on it; Belsimtek's F-5 is made entirely through paper data and matches every single quirk of the actual aircraft; ED's P-47 is where this approach fails.

 

Something ways something skin a cat. For WW2 aircraft it's obviously more productive to not rely entirely on 70 year old documents.

 

Very nice explanation, and this makes a lot of sence. Basicly different approaches to recreate a 70-80 years old plane in a computer game.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Museums are surprisingly unfriendly at cooperating with flight sin developers, unfortunately. Jason has mentioned the difficulty in even getting access to the cockpit of some models without extremely expensive insurance payments beforehand.

 

 

Something ways something skin a cat. For WW2 aircraft it's obviously more productive to not rely entirely on 70 year old documents.

 

 

I have been to several flight museums in the past 5 years, on the West Coast of the US, and I have been able to get close enough to the cockpit to get a good look as well as close up digital pictures(using zoom).  Now if more information is needed such as documentation nothing is lost in just asking.  We must also remember that modifications are made to the cockpit instruments in order to compile with modern aviation communication.  But as you noted there is difference in 1CGS and DCS approach. I also believe ED's approach to the 47 also fails.

 

Thanks Lucas.

Edited by Taxman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes no sense to me as well considering ED is partly owned by The Fighter Collection at Duxford who helped with both the P-51 and Spitfire Mk IX in providing material. TFC also have P-47s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owning an aircraft does not mean you have flight test data in hand, and it's incredibly expensive and impractical to pack a P-47 up and drive it to the nearest wind tunnel to get that data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owning an aircraft does not mean you have flight test data in hand, and it's incredibly expensive and impractical to pack a P-47 up and drive it to the nearest wind tunnel to get that data.

Well at the "Flying Heritage Collection" is what it means, "Flying".  I believe that all of their WW11 birds are flyable with exception of the FW 190D.  They put on flight shows from the late spring to late summer using the planes in the collection.

 

Of course they will not push the birds.  I have talked to several of the pilots and safety is the biggest concern.  So even though being flown they are not pushed to their limits but some information is obtainable.

 

One of the reasons that written flight test data for the P47 is not available is that the company that developed the P47 was sold and almost all of the written flight data was burned, destroyed :o:  :wacko:  :angry:

Edited by Taxman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Museums are surprisingly unfriendly at cooperating with flight sin developers, unfortunately. Jason has mentioned the difficulty in even getting access to the cockpit of some models without extremely expensive insurance payments beforehand.

That seems counterintuitive. Surely museums should be keen to share the knowledge that they have, as that's the whole point of having things preserved in the first place.

I'm disappointed to hear that, and I'm just some guy on the internet with a passion for aviation history.

Must be much more disappointing to be actively trying to collect information to put in your own interactive homage to these aircraft, and to be met with this sort of unhelpfulness and disinterest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well most people still view video games as an unhealthy addiction and a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems counterintuitive. Surely museums should be keen to share the knowledge that they have, as that's the whole point of having things preserved in the first place.

I'm disappointed to hear that, and I'm just some guy on the internet with a passion for aviation history.

Must be much more disappointing to be actively trying to collect information to put in your own interactive homage to these aircraft, and to be met with this sort of unhelpfulness and disinterest.

 

Share with common visitors - yes, but sharing with the company trying to make a virtual model of museum's piece of exhibition, and thus a form of competition? Not necessarily.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well most people still view video games as an unhealthy addiction and a waste of time.

 

Perhaps but I'd be shocked if less than 90% of the population of the industrialized world plays video games of some sort. Of course, most wouldn't call themselves gamers but even if all you do is play solitaire on your work PC during a lunch break or candy crush on your phone while waiting in line at the post office, you're still playing a video game. I suppose that doesn't remove the stigma in some people's eyes though. Regardless, I think our hobby is well accepted in the aviation community. I doubt there are many people flying IRL that haven't tinkered around in FSX, XPlane, P3D, DCS, the IL2 series or some other flight sim. I certainly haven't met many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

One of the reasons that written flight test data for the P47 is not available is that the company that developed the P47 was sold and almost all of the written flight data was burned, destroyed

 

True, but there has to be original flight test data out there that the USAAF carried out on its own. It's probably sitting in an archive of the Smithsonian or the National Museum of the USAF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, is sitting in Sekrit archive accessible by 1C/777   :)  :)

 

VVS and Naval aviation received more than 200 'D' models 

 

(pure speculation and joke, but not soo far fetched, I imagine Tsagi and VVS test facilities gave a good look at these later Western A/C) 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share with common visitors - yes, but sharing with the company trying to make a virtual model of museum's piece of exhibition, and thus a form of competition? Not necessarily.

 

I'm not sure they'd see it that way, though I don't otherwise have an explanation for the perceived lack of cooperation.  

 

Having myself volunteered with the Flying Heritage and Combat Armor Museum (their new name) I can tell you that access to the aircraft themselves are heavily restricted.  We do not touch them at all.  While I am sure that getting chummy with the mechanics or the pilots who operate them would yield results, no doubt there are other considerations at play as well.

 

But I don't believe that they would see it as a form of competition.  One of the things we do as volunteers is operate a half-dozen sim stations on big fly days.  These simulations are running IL2-1946 and with a large screen and hotas, they serve as a great introductory platform for people looking to get into flight sims or simulated aviation in general.  Without fail, people ask us about which game it is and express the desire to pick up a copy.  The museum certainly doesn't profit off of any of the sales of these games, yet I am sure that some of these people have gone out and bought it anyway.

 

If BoX had a planeset that more closely represented the aircraft at the museum and they had the hardware to run it (and BoX had the appropriate LAN multiplayer modes) then I have no doubt that it would also have a place on the sim stations.  Point is, if the museum truly saw flight sims like this as a form of competition, then I doubt they'd let their products be so prominently displayed for large crowds.

 

This raises the question of why there isn't more cooperation between museums that have direct access to these aircraft and related documentation and the developers that are attempting to simulate them.  However, it seems unlikely that a museum (which already has to rely on volunteers to adequately staff events) would devote the time and resources it would take to have someone running errands like this for a developer that would ultimately keep this information to themselves and use it to enhance their own product, for their own benefit.  Perhaps if museums were offered something back as compensation (keys for the game to demo to museum-goers, or other perks) they would be more likely to cooperate.

 

I am also certain that with the appropriate personal connections to someone in a suitable position to supply this information would have far more luck than cold-calling or otherwise using public points of contact for a museum.  But I can only speculate as to the other bindings and legal obligations that employees with this access may be under, and the type of cooperation we would all like to see in regards to these warbirds may be impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...