Jump to content
LLv34_adexu

SpitIX FM and DM bugs.

Recommended Posts

Hey gents,

I can only tell you about my Berloga experience. On Berloga it is definitely more difficult to shoot down MK IX's wings than MK V. The clipwing is even more difficult. It also does not matter if the dead six or in the high deflection shots. The new MK IX behaves in relation to the wings like the old MK V before the patch. Wing made of steel. It makes no difference whether you shoot with all the weapons of the G-6 or only with the 13mm or the 30mm. Also with the FW 190 it does not look different. However, it is just like all other machines very susceptible to hits in the rear, rear or no more controls.

 

Since the MK IX is still in the alpha / beta phase, I think / hope that the problem will settle until the final release. It should also be said that I have not yet seen any MK IX with downed wings on Berloga, who was able to fly or participate in aerial combat. Most opponents in a MK IX have jumped off or hit the ground.

To the video with the MK IX which landed with only half a wing works in the Bf 109 / FW190 too, depends on how much and on which side you miss the part of the wing. But not with flaps and landing gear, normal crash landing.

regards

Little_D

Edited by 1./JG2_Little_D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had no difficulty shooting a half-wing off a Mk IX in the tests I conducted, though that isn't really what is being discussed here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a mod air collision in my P-40 career, the wing came off and I had no way of regaining control. It was such a mild collision that I really didn't notice it and I didn't even know my wing had come off, it wasn't until watching the recording that I found out what had happened.

 

In all honesty I feel that I should have been able to keep it flying for a little longer but it was impossible to control.

Looking at the Spit I have to agree that it looks much to easy to fly after a wing off, it should still be able to fly (if very careful) but with much more difficulty.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting with the P-40: Judging by the visual damage it’s interesting to note how much more difficult it was to control than the Spitfire in the OP’s video. OTOH there was another Spitfire video where it looked much more difficult to control with the same damage. Maybe the reason we see such different behaviour has to do with the visual representation not always being a 1 to 1 with the actual DM damage? IIRC then most aircraft have a visual wing break model showing roughly 1/3, 1/2  or a total wing loss? For example, in one video showing visually 50% of the wing left the actual wing left as seen by the FM after the DM has done its work is only 35% left and in another case you have 65% left? Not saying that that’s what’s going on but it would go some ways to explain why it's sometimes possible to control a 50% wing “loss” and in other cases close to impossible……..

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the remaining aileron still usable in the P-40? If it wasn't, I don't think we need any more explanation for the difference. Though frankly it would be asking too much to expect a damage model that duplicated 'the same damage' to different aircraft in exactly the same way. Not least because the damage can never be exactly the same, and because the aircraft might well react differently to damage in real life anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

Interesting with the P-40: Judging by the visual damage it’s interesting to note how much more difficult it was to control than the Spitfire in the OP’s video. OTOH there was another Spitfire video where it looked much more difficult to control with the same damage. Maybe the reason we see such different behaviour has to do with the visual representation not always being a 1 to 1 with the actual DM damage? IIRC then most aircraft have a visual wing break model showing roughly 1/3, 1/2  or a total wing loss? For example, in one video showing visually 50% of the wing left the actual wing left as seen by the FM after the DM has done its work is only 35% left and in another case you have 65% left? Not saying that that’s what’s going on but it would go some ways to explain why it's sometimes possible to control a 50% wing “loss” and in other cases close to impossible……..

 

Does this mean, that what we see in these videos is not the same what the game-engine do calculate the damage is? So theres only 2 or 3 different possibility to the game to show the damage, only 2 or 3 ways to cut a wing. So we dont see the cut there, where it should be.

 

ed. Yes it is, now when I did read your post again. Then these videos dont mean much. Visual damage dont represent the real damage.

ed.2 I dont complain or anything, and I really appreciate the videos all have sent.

Edited by VesseL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VesseL said:

 

Does this mean, that what we see in these videos is not the same what the game-engine do calculate the damage is? So theres only 2 or 3 different possibility to the game to show the damage, only 2 or 3 ways to cut a wing. So we dont see the cut there, where it should be.

 

ed. Yes it is, now when I did read your post again. Then these videos dont mean much. Visual damage dont represent the real damage.

ed.2 I dont complain or anything, and I really appreciate the videos all have sent.

 

Well AFAIK the visual damage in-game is not 100% correlated to the actual damage so I was thinking this could be a plausible explanation but it's of course difficult to tell. Could be other explanations as well for what we see of course.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The elevator position is wrong for the Spit V in level flight, is the IX also incorrect? We have an easy to prove mistake, surprised there isn't more screaming.

 

Are control surfaces visual position linked to FM?

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent PM to Jason, he didn't read it for a while, I guess he is pretty busy and inbox is pretty full. But now it is read at least. Video might be watched too. Dev team has a lot more tools that we do to look into these matters.

Clearly we can't know if this is just visual modeling or FM issue, net code (wing doesn't come off with one or two 30 mm hits) or DM issue. Hope they will find what is up with that and will be able to fix it.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[edited]

 

Attacking the devs wont get you anywhere here, period. Next time you should think twice how you want to write your posts.

 

 

 

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2018 at 5:50 PM, AndyJWest said:

 

If you lose 2/3 of one wing, you have 2/3 of the total wing area (both wings) remaining.

Wrong calculation.

If 2/3 of a whole are gone,then 3/3 - 2/3 = 1/3 

The other wing is 3/3, so 

1/3 + 3/3 = 4/3 = 1 whole and 1/3 

 

That's mathematics for 10 years old children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -[HRAF]Grunf said:

Wrong calculation.

 

No, it's correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -[HRAF]Grunf said:

Wrong calculation.

If 2/3 of a whole are gone,then 3/3 - 2/3 = 1/3 

The other wing is 3/3, so 

1/3 + 3/3 = 4/3 = 1 whole and 1/3 

 

That's mathematics for 10 years old children.

 

1 hour ago, JtD said:

 

No, it's correct.

 

 

I'm [Edited] at math. Which one of you is right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I math it this way: Both Wings= 6/6  minus  2/6= 4/6  leveling down  its 2/3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, -[HRAF]Grunf said:

Wrong calculation.

If 2/3 of a whole are gone,then 3/3 - 2/3 = 1/3 

The other wing is 3/3, so 

1/3 + 3/3 = 4/3 = 1 whole and 1/3 

 

That's mathematics for 10 years old children.

 

Good grief! If you are going to be rude at least get things right.

 

1 whole wing + 1/3 of a wing = 2/3 of two wings.  1/3 of one wing = 1/6 of two wings, so think of it as 3/6 + 1/6 = 4/6 = 2/3  

 

Actually the outer wing area is more like 60% of one wing than 66.6%, if you actually measure the area, so you have  100% + 40% = 140% of one wing or 70% of the total left.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no discussion that the 30mm is or shoud be so powerfull that if your plane survives the hit you have some luck.

 

Is well known that some planes hold big damage on the wings and they could come back home. So on the game can happen the same. We agree

 But I think we agree also that to keep flying the plane in that conditions would be hard and challenging and i saw hits of the 30mm on this game and the plane still can dogfight like nothing happens. I tested by myseld being hit and i even can still outturn 109s. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

But I think we agree also that to keep flying the plane in that conditions would be hard and challenging and i saw hits of the 30mm on this game and the plane still can dogfight like nothing happens. I tested by myseld being hit and i even can still outturn 109s.

 

This is not limited to the MK108 - I had seen the 190 tanking M54 37mm hit plus dozen rounds of the 50cal. The enemy plane just flew away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

Good grief! If you are going to be rude at least get things right.

 

1 whole wing + 1/3 of a wing = 2/3 of two wings.  1/3 of one wing = 1/6 of two wings, so think of it as 3/6 + 1/6 = 4/6 = 2/3  

 

Actually the outer wing area is more like 60% of one wing than 66.6%, if you actually measure the area, so you have  100% + 40% = 140% of one wing or 70% of the total left.

 

 

You can´t calculate two wings as it would be one surface. What would happen, if the whole left wing would be destroyed? Then you would have 3/6  or 1/2 of the whole surface of the two wings, but would it still be able to stay in the air?

That would be a real bug if the answer is "yes" :-)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

This is not limited to the MK108 - I had seen the 190 tanking M54 37mm hit plus dozen rounds of the 50cal. The enemy plane just flew away.

50 calls did little to none damage to the structure of the airframe. It did damage to critical components: engine, pilot, fuel tanks, radiators etc. With 50 cals you must aim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

This is not limited to the MK108 - I had seen the 190 tanking M54 37mm hit plus dozen rounds of the 50cal. The enemy plane just flew away.

37 hit is a serious one. But If is AP round it just will make a 4cm hole on the wing panel and the 50 cal a 1 cm each so not really a large impact on speed. But to lose 1/3 of your wing surface is mu h worse and catastrophic if not for the plane for any kind of manouver. 

 

Anyways I think the damage model should be revisted in general. Because there are a lot of weird things on the actual one.

Edited by E69_geramos109

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, -[HRAF]Grunf said:

You can´t calculate two wings as it would be one surface. What would happen, if the whole left wing would be destroyed? Then you would have 3/6  or 1/2 of the whole surface of the two wings, but would it still be able to stay in the air?

That would be a real bug if the answer is "yes" :-)

 

 

As far as the lift required for flight is concerned it is just "one surface", and if the wing loading was low enough flight would be physically possible with only one wing, provided that the asymmetry could be controlled.   So the issue is whether the loss of part of one wing either 1) reduces available lift sufficiently to make flight impossible, and/or 2) makes the lift so asymmetric that control is impossible.  

 

In the case of 1) the answer is clear that there is plenty of lift left to fly. With 30% of it's total wing area gone the Spitfires still have almost as much wing area left as intact 109s and about the same wing loading, so if controllable it ought to be able to fly level without difficulty: it will just have a slightly (5-6%) increased minimum speed.   

 

The case of 2) is more of a problem. The first question is whether one aileron is incapable of countering the asymmetric lift. So far I do not recall anyone coming up with any analysis that says that it cannot.  The FM obviously thinks that it can: it is up to people to prove it wrong, and AFAIK no-one has even tried.   

 

The second is how long the pilot can hold the aileron in that position. The force required may not be huge, but human muscles cannot maintain a constant force for very long.  Whatever the answer to that question, this is a limitation of the modelling of the pilot, not of the aircraft.  The physical limitations of the pilot are modeled to some extent in the game, which for us users seems to be bundled into the FM. What is not modeled in any case, AFAIK  is the effects of fatigue.  So in game, rolling speed is limited by the speed at which the virtual pilot can apply force to the stick, hence the stiffening at higher speeds: but once the stick has been moved, it can stay in a given position indefinitely.  If we all had FFB sticks that required the same forces as a real joystick, I expect that the BoX Spitfires would not be controllable for very long. 

 

My interpretation of what we have is that there is not a bug as such - ie a piece of obviously mistaken coding, but it may illustrate an unanticipated side effect of the lack of a fatigue model which we are seeing due to the Spitfire's unusually low wing loading and the location of the wing segmentation.      

2 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

 

Edited by unreasonable
I hate this new forum format....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

The case of 2) is more of a problem. The first question is whether one aileron is incapable of countering the asymmetric lift. So far I do not recall anyone coming up with any analysis that says that it cannot.  The FM obviously thinks that it can: it is up to people to prove it wrong, and AFAIK no-one has even tried.  

 

The rudder (IMHO) should not be overlooked because it adds to roll rotation too what can be quite helpful here.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took video down as I got a respond from developers. I need to make additional tests. Will take some time as I am busy guy. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

What additional tests? Maybe post what you want to do and people can help.

cheers!

I think it is better that one guy will make those tests. I will try to make them same way so the accuracy of the test will be same.

It will take some time and as I understood they are pretty busy. But if this will be confirmed, they will look in to Spit DM and FM.

Edited by LLv34_adexu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Anyone have an aileron control cable run diagram for the Spitfire?

 

Will this do?

Spit_Ail_Mech.jpg

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a split in control lines at the stick? As in each wing has individual connections? Loss of one side is just that side sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

Is there a split in control lines at the stick? As in each wing has individual connections? Loss of one side is just that side sort of thing.

 

If this CAD drawing is accurate there would have been one cable per wing (or two cables per wing, both fixed to the pulley), by the look of it. https://grabcad.com/library/control-column-spade-grip-supermarine-spitfire-2018-carbon-1 Obviously this isn't original, but presumably it is based on reality: I can't imagine anyone going to the trouble of inventing a fictitious mechanism that complex. I've not been able to find any photos to confirm it though - the centre pulley is hidden under the seat.

 

As for for the remaining aileron still being in working order after losing a wing, I think that would be a definite 'maybe'. Even if the forces ripping the wing off don't damage the remaining mechanism, what cable remains might well jam on something.

 

Edit: Found a photo showing the centre pulley (5th photo down), which seems to suggest that the CAD drawing is more or less correct.  The way it's made looks to me that both cables from both ailerons were attached. http://paysspitfire.blogspot.com/2015/02/update-february-2015.html

 

Thinking about it, I'd assume from a design point of view that you'd want to attach both cables from each wing to the joystick mechanism if at all possible, since not only does this make it more likely that one aileron still works if you have a cable shot out, but it makes the whole thing more rigid - long runs of cable inevitably add unwanted elasticity to the system. 

Edited by AndyJWest
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AP1565B Vol1 Sect 7 Chap 4 Fig 2  includes a diagram of the aileron control system including a detail on the cable drum, which has two distinct cable surfaces - need an engineer to be 100% sure but I am 99.9% sure that the diagram shows that each wing's cable is separate at the drum.  Damage to one cable might lead to a jam at the cable drum, but ordinarily the undamaged cable should work normally.

 

It would be extraordinarily bad design to allow a single hit anywhere on the cables to disable both ailerons, but bad designs do happen: but it looks like this was not one of them.

 

I am afraid that I do not have a scanner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://simhardware.org/page6.html

 

Spitfire aileron control drum design ( Pulley Picture Below). From what I have seen in the past it is very similar to the hurricane (Cockpit Diagram) cable method, having the left and right aileron cables on a separate cable circuit, hence four cable guides on the pulley below.

 

 

 

 

10.jpg

Hurri drom 5 large.jpg

Edited by bzc3lk
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. Was curious if it was single a cable from one aileron to the other aileron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2018 at 8:31 AM, LLv34_adexu said:

Ok. People need to see this, this is why I did separate topic about it.

So we did tests all different guns, german Mk 108, russian 20 mm, 23 mm and 37 mm. All russian tests done with special ammo. I had time only to edit and put tests up with Mk 108. Russian guns had same effect, but the 37 HE worked as wing saw from one hit. Others need 3-4 hits to take that wing off. DM model should be checked from middle to the tip of the wings on all planes. 

 

At same time we noticed something interesting in the test and by accident recorded SpitIX flying with out a wing, well it was missing 60-70% of it.

I posted this also on .ru forum, I wish getting answer there from developers. If they will answer, I will translate it here too.

 

 

 

Just for future reference, whatever you did with this video caused Youtube to block it in Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bzc3lk

 

I'm fairly certain that the diagram you have posted is for a Hurricane, not a Spitfire. The mechanism is much the same, but there are lots of detail differences.

Edited by AndyJWest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

@bzc3lk

 

I'm fairly certain that the diagram you have posted is for a Hurricane, not a Spitfire. The mechanism is much the same, but there are lots of detail differences.

 

The top picture is the Spitfire pulley and the bottom picture is for the hurricane showing the same operating principles concerning the cable actuation drum featuring four separate cables to the pulley drum. The Spitfire pulley is located towards the base of the control column while the Hurricane has an extended torque tube to the aileron cable pulley.

The Spitfire (Top Pulley Picture) uses four cables like the hurricane but has four groove actuation drum with two anchorage pins instead of four like the Hurricane to secure the cables.

The Hurricane (Lower Pulley Picture) uses four cables like the Spitfire but has a twin groove actuation drum, hence the four  pin anchorage system.

Spitfire.jpg

12.jpg

Hurri drum 3 large.jpg

Edited by bzc3lk
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2018 at 8:31 AM, LLv34_adexu said:

Ok. People need to see this, this is why I did separate topic about it.

So we did tests all different guns, german Mk 108, russian 20 mm, 23 mm and 37 mm. All russian tests done with special ammo. I had time only to edit and put tests up with Mk 108. Russian guns had same effect, but the 37 HE worked as wing saw from one hit. Others need 3-4 hits to take that wing off. DM model should be checked from middle to the tip of the wings on all planes. 

 

At same time we noticed something interesting in the test and by accident recorded SpitIX flying with out a wing, well it was missing 60-70% of it.

I posted this also on .ru forum, I wish getting answer there from developers. If they will answer, I will translate it here too.

 

 

Your video is deleted?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...