If there's one thing........???????

[HagarTheHorrible]

If there's one thing........... the Digital Nature engine (BoS) desperately needs it's an automatic tool/program for quickly and easily setting up and testing FM's. Not only for bringing new aircraft into being but also reviewing them later after they've been let loose on the great unwashed.  I wonder why it hasn't been done ?

In a perfect world it would also be open to the hoi paloy so that anyone interested could play around with the FM's(in a controlled environment) much like the mission builder before submitting them for peer review.

[BraveSirRobin]

The DN FM process is much too complex for something like that.  You're not going to get access to mod FMs unless you get your hands on the source code.

[Finkeren]

BraveSirRobin said it right there. There is nothing simple about DN.

[LukeFF]

If some think some of the FM discussions are bad now, they would be unbearable if such an idea was ever implemented. No, I trust the team to get things with the FM right.

Edited June 27, 2014 by LukeFF

[LBR=H-Ostermann]

That option to allow anyone to play with the FM's is why I transferred from the CFS franchise to IL2 when it first came out. 

[Gambit21]

Yep - abysmal idea.

[TX-Zigrat]

Not a good idea to let people mod the fm, but letting us see more details (alpha beta CL CD CY CM CN Cl thrust torque) would be awesome. Would help us diagnose problems.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Given that FM's are such a favorite topic amongst the sim chatteratie then I think it would be absolutely fascinating to see what Joe public came up with.

 

To have access to a sandbox enviroment were those people interested could chop and change different parameters of the aircraft flight models to their hearts content would be, for some (much like making skins), a game in itself.  They (FM's) could of course be totally off the wall, but some might be very well considered and thought out.  They might then be passed around so that anyone interested could try them out in their own little sandbox and pass judgement on their merits or otherwise.  The better ones might even grab the attention of the dev's, which if nothing else, might give them food for thought.  Some might consider the dev's are beyond fault, or reproach, but as history has told us, there are lot's of clever, interested people out there with reams of info and knowledge who have nothing better to do (with nothing more constraining than time and patience) than to try and perfect what others might already consider to be pretty impressive. 

[BraveSirRobin]

The flight model process is almost certainly a closely held secret.  They're never going to give you access to it.  

[HagarTheHorrible]

The flight model process is almost certainly a closely held secret.  They're never going to give you access to it.  

 

Why do you think that ?

 

It's the implementation into the game that's important and the game engine that uses it, not necessarily the list of numbers that define how an object moves in that environment.  It's not as if it's a novel or unique notion, DCS do it, as did FSX, it's just a question of control and licensing. 

 

Hell, even start with something basic like just a propeller or a simple glider as a proof of concept.  Provide a line drawing with a series of boxes, with variable numbers values, pointing to the correct area, adjust them and see what happens, have fun, even learn something about aerodynamics.

[BraveSirRobin]

not necessarily the list of numbers that define how an object moves in that environment

 

It's not a list of numbers.  It's a lot more complicated than that.

[Leaf]

Why do you think that ?

 

It's the implementation into the game that's important and the game engine that uses it, not necessarily the list of numbers that define how an object moves in that environment.  It's not as if it's a novel or unique notion, DCS do it, as did FSX, it's just a question of control and licensing. 

 

Hell, even start with something basic like just a propeller or a simple glider as a proof of concept.  Provide a line drawing with a series of boxes, with variable numbers values, pointing to the correct area, adjust them and see what happens, have fun, even learn something about aerodynamics.

 

Despite being fairly ignorant in programming, I am doing A Level Maths and Physics and trust me, it is not just "lists of numbers that define how an object moves". Ever heard of a Physical Law? Formulae? Variables? It is ridiculously complicated and an incredibly intricate task to simulate flight in a virtual environment. Afterall, that's why the lead programmer for IL2 BoS is an engineer, not a 15 year-old with a number-fetish.

Besides, this is still in Early Access. A program to "test FM's" * is not just un-feasible at this point, but also jumping the gun a bit, don't you think? There are many things that are more important at this point... like cockpits made of marshmallows. And personalised fruit baskets in each plane.

 

* take note of the fact that the Digital Nature engine is just that. Digital Nature. It abides by the laws of physics and tries to mimic the world that we live in. As Zak mentioned in his Bf 109 FM post, it's not just a matter of changing a number here or there. They have to literally go through the entire FM making process and see whether or not they can tweak their mathematical formulae that define how objects move in-game. 

Edited July 4, 2014 by LeafyPredicament

[HagarTheHorrible]

Despite being fairly ignorant in programming, I am doing A Level Maths and Physics and trust me, it is not just "lists of numbers that define how an object moves". Ever heard of a Physical Law? Formulae? Variables? It is ridiculously complicated and an incredibly intricate task to simulate flight in a virtual environment. Afterall, that's why the lead programmer for IL2 BoS is an engineer, not a 15 year-old with a number-fetish.

Besides, this is still in Early Access. A program to "test FM's" * is not just un-feasible at this point, but also jumping the gun a bit, don't you think? There are many things that are more important at this point... like cockpits made of marshmallows. And personalised fruit baskets in each plane.

 

* take note of the fact that the Digital Nature engine is just that. Digital Nature. It abides by the laws of physics and tries to mimic the world that we live in. As Zak mentioned in his Bf 109 FM post, it's not just a matter of changing a number here or there. They have to literally go through the entire FM making process and see whether or not they can tweak their mathematical formulae that define how objects move in-game.

 

The Digital Nature engine has been available for several years and an FM sandbox is outside of the minutiae of individual game development.

 

Obviously FM development for the DN engine isn't straight forward, but that is often why tools are developed to try and rationalise the process as far as possible.

 

If you want to draw or manipulate a picture on a computer you don't have to have an intimate understanding of computer code you simply use tools that others have provided to simplify what could otherwise be a very complicated process.

 

It's not black magic, other sims, games, even one's as advanced as DCS have externally created content.

 

Let us maybe consider a propeller as part of a model. The base design (maybe several pre-defined options) has some fundamental properties within the game engine (You don't need to code or define them yourself) you then adjust several parameters and test to see what happens, for example, pitch, cord, length, shape etc etc. the program does most of the hard coding work, you simply adjust various parameters and test and tweak. Isn't that the way FM's are normally created ? Maybe a physics engine is different in detail but the underlying laws and rational must be similar to how FM's in other sims are created.

[Georgio]

If the FM were that easily modified we'd be back to the bad old days of foo fighters in Il-2, no thanks been there earned the t-shirt.

FM/DM should be as hard-coded as it is possible to do and then some; it's the only way to keep credibility in a flight sim.

[69th_chuter]

...

 

Let us maybe consider a propeller as part of a model. The base design (maybe several pre-defined options) has some fundamental properties within the game engine (You don't need to code or define them yourself) you then adjust several parameters and test to see what happens, for example, pitch, cord, length, shape etc etc. the program does most of the hard coding work, you simply adjust various parameters and test and tweak. ...

 

 

Sounds like X-Plane.  ...Although ...

 

Let's look at that propeller for a second.  The P-51 was designed to meet standard stability requirements while using a three blade propeller.  When they went to the Merlin and threw on a high altitude, larger area four blade there was a distinct loss of directional stability (the Brits actually started testing larger fin variations because the USAAF and North American seemed to have other priorities).  When the bubble canopy (taller and less streamlined) was added the resulting turbulence ahead of the fin reduced directional stability even more finally forcing a fix for both the regular and bubble Mustang (razorback, back then, was the nick of the pre-bubble P-47).  A friend of mine who is big on X-plane couldn't find this subtlety in X-Plane modeling and it strives to do exactly what you seem to be asking for. 

[Nage]

If some think some of the FM discussions are bad now, they would be unbearable if such an idea was ever implemented. No, I trust the team to get things with the FM right.

I will hold my statement until I see if BOS will have fixed FMs in the future (relative performance ratios between planes)..because ROF FMs (relative performances between planes) are still unfixed.

 

But Im not sure if your statement is unbiased since you are very close to the leading man of the dev team.

Edited July 5, 2014 by tikvic

[Leaf]

The Digital Nature engine has been available for several years and an FM sandbox is outside of the minutiae of individual game development.

 

Obviously FM development for the DN engine isn't straight forward, but that is often why tools are developed to try and rationalise the process as far as possible.

 

If you want to draw or manipulate a picture on a computer you don't have to have an intimate understanding of computer code you simply use tools that others have provided to simplify what could otherwise be a very complicated process.

 

It's not black magic, other sims, games, even one's as advanced as DCS have externally created content.

Let us maybe consider a propeller as part of a model. The base design (maybe several pre-defined options) has some fundamental properties within the game engine (You don't need to code or define them yourself) you then adjust several parameters and test to see what happens, for example, pitch, cord, length, shape etc etc. the program does most of the hard coding work, you simply adjust various parameters and test and tweak. Isn't that the way FM's are normally created ? Maybe a physics engine is different in detail but the underlying laws and rational must be similar to how FM's in other sims are created.

 

I don't quite see what you want the finished product to be?

Do you want an FM testing program? In which case, there isn't much to do, since you can't just modify random parameters to your liking. IL2 BoS is a simulation. The behaviour of planes is dictated by data sheets and pilot reports, not by what "kind-of feels right". A program like that would be necessary in WarThunder, where balance [should] take priority over skill and historical accuracy.

Or do you want a kind of "build-your-own" game, where you can essentially design your own plane with different parts and test its flight characteristics? Now that would be very cool, but as I said, it's jumping the gun a bit in Early Access.

[LukeFF]

But Im not sure if your statement is unbiased since you are very close to the leading man of the dev team.

 

My opinions are what they are - they aren't affected by any sort of friendship I may have with people who are a part of 1CGS. Let's just leave it at that.

[Nage]

My opinions are what they are - they aren't affected by any sort of friendship I may have with people who are a part of 1CGS. Let's just leave it at that.

I absolutely dont trust you. But you have a right to express your or "your" opinion. That I dont question. Lets move on ofcourse...

 

On topic. I think BOS (or ROF) engine is advanced engine in many ways. However the biggest problem is how it handles more/many ground units in one mission...how it deals with AI since it has its own FM which isnt simplified, I believe. 

Edited July 5, 2014 by tikvic

[Leaf]

I absolutely dont trust you.

That's fairly insulting isn't it? 

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Im not sure if the OP was sugesting a tool to mod the FM. I believe (may be wrong/im saying this would be good) he was talking about a tool that would allow you to monitor parameters about the FM so that people can actually understand certain aspects of the aircafts peformance. For example a mode that could record AOA, forces,side-slip, acceleration/velocity vectors.....maybe in real time or to a text folder so that the FM could be analysied by anyone that wanted to. I for one would find this a very atractive feature as it could shed light on certain things(109 bother 4 example), or be used to check how realistic things are, allowing for a robust scientific analysis. I myself am an aerospace engineer and pilot and would love to see something like this, I have been doing "proper tests" such as climb rate/time to altitude, I have even tried assesing some of the stability chariteristics but with out something like the above stated tool testing is very limmited.

 

I also do not see in anyway how this kind of thing would be giving away secrets(as the sectets lie in the execution of the software/programing of the FM not its outputs).

 

Also would give anyone an unfair advantage

Edited July 5, 2014 by AeroAce

[Leaf]

Im not sure if the OP was sugesting a tool to mod the FM. I believe (may be wrong/im saying this would be good) he was talking about a tool that would allow you to monitor parameters about the FM so that people can actually understand certain aspects of the aircafts peformance. For example a mode that could record AOA, forces,side-slip, acceleration/velocity vectors.....maybe in real time or to a text folder so that the FM could be analysied by anyone that wanted to. I for one would find this a very atractive feature as it could shed light on certain things(109 bother 4 example), or be used to check how realistic things are, allowing for a robust scientific analysis. I myself am an aerospace engineer and pilot [...]

 

Wow, nice occupation you have there. If I were smart enough, I would love to study aeronautical engineering! :D 

But yes, if it was used as a way of understanding flight characteristics, rather than modifying them, then I'm all for it; although I still think this should be a post-January / post-mission editor project.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Wow, nice occupation you have there. If I were smart enough, I would love to study aeronautical engineering! :D

But yes, if it was used as a way of understanding flight characteristics, rather than modifying them, then I'm all for it; although I still think this should be a post-January / post-mission editor project.

 

Lol it's not quite rocket science

[Gambit21]

That's fairly insulting isn't it? 

...as well as unnecessary.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I was actually talking about fiddling with FM's.

 

So much space and heat in sim forums is devoted to FM debates.

 

Would it not be nice to have a sealed off sandbox were instead of just arguing about FM's. People could put their time, knowledge and expertise to some constuctive use. Either put up or shut up. Don't just wait for manner from heaven from the time and finance restricted Dev's but demonstrate what geniuses you are and present alternatives to the community for either praise or derision. Let the debates be constructive rather than destructive by providing an outlet, it might even be fun.

 

I don't pretend that producing an FM is easy. There are probably several hundred variables that define one aircraft from another and that adjusting one value might affect dozens of others leading to literally thousands of permiatations or that producing an FM is as much an art as a science, however given the right tools there are talented people out there who would love nothing more than the challenge. Make the most of all that brilliant, enthusiastic talent out there. It could be a game, all be it a rather techniqual one, within a game.

[Gambit21]

....yeah I'd love that if I was a competing developer thinking of starting production on a WWII flight sim.

Come on man...

[HagarTheHorrible]

But, and I'm not trying to cause an argument here, what would be the point of this FM manipulator?

Surely you'd just end up with 600 different versions of a 109 and 578 different Yak-1s - nobody would ever agree that one version was the correct one.

You couldn't open it up to multiplayer, because as soon as competition was introduced you'd end up with people creating ridiculous UFOs that outperform everything.

Just sounds like it would be a useful tool with no real purpose.

Given the amount of airtime devoted to flight models discussion there's obviously lot's of unfulfilled energy outlets for some. Some people are happy to fill their time by producing skins, others with mission making but there is no such outlet for expressing their creativity when it comes to FM's.

 

Lot's of people say they can do better, but have no way of expressing that, it's pretty much all just hot air. You're probably correct, there might be several dozen variations of what is considered right, but it might be a great way , much as scientific papers are open to pier review, to work through various thoughts and theories. As fantastic as the Dev's might be it's not to say that they are always 100% correct and if differences can be demonstrated rather than simply shouted about everyone might learn a thing or two. As long as the Modified FM's are kept to a sandbox, unless the Dev's see a positive reason to adjust their own, then no harm is done, it is purely an academic excersize for fun and learning.

[Leaf]

Given the amount of airtime devoted to flight models discussion there's obviously lot's of unfulfilled energy outlets for some. Some people are happy to fill their time by producing skins, others with mission making but there is no such outlet for expressing their creativity when it comes to FM's.

 

Lot's of people say they can do better, but have no way of expressing that, it's pretty much all just hot air. You're probably correct, there might be several dozen variations of what is considered right, but it might be a great way , much as scientific papers are open to pier review, to work through various thoughts and theories. As fantastic as the Dev's might be it's not to say that they are always 100% correct and if differences can be demonstrated rather than simply shouted about everyone might learn a thing or two. As long as the Modified FM's are kept to a sandbox, unless the Dev's see a positive reason to adjust their own, then no harm is done, it is purely an academic excersize for fun and learning.

 

Sure, but what's the point of historical accuracy then? The whole aim of this simulator is to try and recreate, as realistically as possible, air combat over Stalingrad. Making your own FM's would be fun, I'm sure, but I don't see how it would fit into this game. 

[LizLemon]

Someone on here posted a link to an old interview with RoF devs (pre-777 takeover) that explained the way their FM worked.

 

From the sound of things it works as a combination of look up tables and some basic simulated physics, which is actually very similar to what old '46 does.

 

Does anyone have that link?

[Bladderburst]

Why should this game be more entitled to release tools to tweak its mechanics more than let's say call of duty?

[BlitzPig_EL]

A type of IL2 Compare, where we could see the performance stats of each aircraft would be a good thing.

 

It's the only useful way to compare virtual aircraft to their real world performance.   It would help settle the ever present arguments that WILL arise, and you know they will.

Look at the stats and plane X does climb at such and such a rate, or plane Y can attain speed A at a certain altitude.

 

I would never, ever, be in favor of an ability to tinker with the FMs.  EVER.

 

But the players do need a way to call out the devs if something is clearly wrong.  Let's face it, they are as human as you or I, have their likes and dislikes just as you and I do, so holding their feet to the fire on

an obviously incorrect FM (P47 roll rate in original IL2 for example) is a necessary utility for a true simulation.

[LukeFF]

 

 

Let's face it, they are as human as you or I, have their likes and dislikes just as you and I do, so holding their feet to the fire on an obviously incorrect FM (P47 roll rate in original IL2 for example) is a necessary utility for a true simulation.

 

So it's not a true simulation unless/until such a tool is released? 

[Gambit21]

Yeah, color me baffled on that one.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Gambit21

[Leaf]

Rant time:

 

This is a personal gripe, but I find it annoying and pointless when people accuse FM's of being "obviously wrong" and "clearly inaccurate" or "broken" when there is no historical evidence to back up their claim. How on earth are we supposed to know how the aircraft flew? We know diddly squat and sweet FA about how these aircraft behaved in the air. The 109, for instance, was notoriously tricky to fly (I'm assuming that that's fairly well-known), who is to say that that was not due to a hypersensitive rudder? Granted, I think it's a bit strange in-game, but I'm neither a pilot, nor engineer, nor physicist; I can't judge the FM!

Sitting in a comfy chair at a desk with headphones and a small joystick does not, in my opinion, allow for criticisms of flight models, especially if the main argument is "it just doesn't feel right". Unless evidence is provided, calling FM's "borked" or "just not right" is futile.

Edited July 7, 2014 by LeafyPredicament

[TJT]

Rant time:

 

This is a personal gripe, but I find it annoying and pointless when people accuse FM's of being "obviously wrong" and "clearly inaccurate" or "broken" when there is no historical evidence to back up their claim. How on earth are we supposed to know how the aircraft flew? We know diddly squat and sweet FA about how these aircraft behaved in the air. The 109, for instance, was notoriously tricky to fly (I'm assuming that that's fairly well-known), who is to say that that was not due to a hypersensitive rudder? Granted, I think it's a bit strange in-game, but I'm neither a pilot, nor engineer, nor physicist; I can't judge the FM!

Sitting in a comfy chair at a desk with headphones and a small joystick does not, in my opinion, allow for criticisms of flight models, especially if the main argument is "it just doesn't feel right". Unless evidence is provided, calling FM's "borked" or "just not right" is futile.

 

 

It wasnt notoriously tricky to FLY per se, taking off and landing on the other hand had risks due to certain tendencys.

[BlitzPig_EL]

What I am saying is that blindly trusting FMs has been proven over the years to be as wrong headed as believeing claims of users of the title on face value.

 

A database that shows the in game performance of the aircraft in the sim will settle arguements and stop forum flame wars before they start.

 

Of course there will no doubt be testing of FMS by players who have the methods of doing so. Wouldn't it be nice for a change that the testing matches what we have, instead of

finding way too light LaGGs, and starship 109s?

 

Or, will questions about FMs be swept under the carpet?

 

And as I said I in no way want any group of players to have access to the tools to tinker with FMs. Been down that road before and it only splits what is a very small community

and drives another spike in the coffin of combat flight simulation.

[FlatSpinMan]

Giving people FM tools would be a disaster. As El Aurens said, it would fracture our tiny community (somehow it'd leak out of the 'sandbox'), and it'd generate the mother of all flamewars. Anyone armed with a harmful amount of knowledge could create then spread all kinds of BS data, and worse, videos. Look what people who are against BoS have posted about its WIP FMs.

Mere FM discussions on sim forums are seemingly impossible to conduct as it is. FM experimenting just seems self-destructive from the get-go. Just my 2yen, of course.

El - I don't follow your logic about "true simulations". That sounds an awful lot like someone's subjective opinion, to me.

[Nage]

Giving people FM tools would be a disaster.

Not If the code is given to the dedicated team of knowledgable and study ppl who would be of a trust of devs. TF team did great job for CLOD and FMs are still beeing corrected. In the team are ppl of different background and interest. Why we cant have that in BOS in the future (if devs wouldnt have time for (all) FM fixes for some reason - (ROF experience))...??

 

Look what people who are against BoS have posted about its WIP FMs.

Devs already stated that for some planes FM is 99% done. And Im pretty sure ppl who argued FMs and have silver and golden tags arent the "ppl who are against BOS" as you would like to call them. Im sorry. Why would anybody bother and pay if hes not givin a damn about this product. BTW, FM in general is never a problem. It was some VERY odd stuff for which we even dont need to argue or look for docs, like super fast roll rate in LaGG (even better than documented for real FW190 which was fast in roll) or "crazy rudder" in BF109. Neither was ever documented and neither was existable, to my knowledge. This are just 2 extreme examples. With that said Fm cant be so wrong to make (on example) Zero faster than P47 or LaGG roll faster than FW190. There should be some standards specifically when speaking about relative performances between planes. Of course, if we want to have a sim which isnt an half arcade like WT but a serious sim which would represent (as correctly as possbile) RL planes and history of WW2 airwar.

Mere FM discussions on sim forums are seemingly impossible to conduct as it is. FM experimenting just seems self-destructive from the get-go. Just my 2yen, of course.

Shame you wont follow FM discussions on ATAG forum. Some pretty civil and constructive (supported with real docs) discussions are goin on there...just sayin wink wink! :-)

 

El - I don't follow your logic about "true simulations". That sounds an awful lot like someone's subjective opinion, to me.

When he said "true simulations" he probably thought about producing simulation with an "hardcore" approach to FM and DM. We all want BOS to have best parts from DCS (study sim), IL2 46 (massive MP, modding), CLOD (cockpits, visuals and modding, game engine capability) and ROF (feeling of flight - FM in general, inovations). Will it have we will see, but as things are now, the "hardcore" simmers arent the main "target" of BOS marketing. Sry for the red letters I dont know how to quotte your every line separately.

Edited July 7, 2014 by tikvic