Getting half a game?

Well, to stop that, you should've said something.

WtF happened to my thread ! :p

You asked if KOE will be superior to RB + Mods.



[Threads being fixed]

This is hysterical lol

Rolling wheel graphics are not modeled, but the action is, as is bounce and ground effect.

Planes have weight, drag, inertia, control surface inertia for each control surface, control surface area, position of control surface in X,Y,Z coordinates, thrust, drag, center of gravity, and lots of other flight model parameters. There are about 60 odd plane specific parameters that make up the flight model.

A plane can come apart and the individual pieces do fall, but this is not modeled in a terribly sopisticated way. In reality, a biplane should fold up when a major portion of wing is lost. In RB this is not the case as the biplane structural dependencies are not well modeled. In fact, in some versions of the FM losing plane parts would improve performance on some planes because the calculated decrease in drag made up for the loss of lift (I did mention the lack of sophistication ). This has been largely overcome in user modified FMs, which shows that the FM engine is OK, it's just some of the data inputs that were screwy.

So ... RB has a physics based FM. It is not a sophisticated FM by today's standards, but it is not table based.

Pat,

Be honest - FM's were not a strong suit of RB2/3D. It did purport to offer a physics-based "realistic" FM mode. But the physics upon which it was based were not of the earthly variety. Remember the amazing multiple vertical Immelman feats performed by the Alb D.III in the "realistic" FM mode? Or the fact that the Camel would actually perform better after losing its upper wing to damage?

LB edit - Oops, just re-read your above post and you DO remember the Camel shedded-wing performance boost! Aaaah, those were the good old days .... ;-)

I recall that a lot of people actually came to prefer playing in the old "normal" FM mode. which, for all it faults, was actually perceived as more reasonable than the "realistic" mode.

On that note, I wonder whatever happend to the FGMOF....


LB

LB: The only comment that I was making was that RBII is physics based, not table based. I freely acknowledge that the physics are extrapolated, and therefore far less than perfect. I will argue, however, that WITH THE RIGHT DATA the algorithms are not at all bad. What made the "realistic" FM so awful was the data that was fed to it. The really silly effects have been pretty much eliminated by newer, user made FMs. The fact that a different data set can produce pretty good results shows that the underlying algorithms are really not that awful. Many a modern flight sim has worse FMs out of the box than WvW's or Greybeards RB FMs (IL2 is not one of them ).

FGMOF: BlueVoss is still around. Chuck Holden hasn't been heard from in a long time.

One final note: Nobody should interpret the above commentary as "RB is the paragon of flight modeling". All I am trying to say is that it is physics based (a fact) and that it is not awful if it gets the right data (an opinion). If KOE is not a whole lot better it will be a huge disappointment.

No harshness intended toward you personally on my part. Just reminiscing. I had fallen out of the loop for a bit and missed the WvW and Grebeard FM work. The last I remembered was Panama Red's FM project. I do remember the hair pulling frustration of BV & the FGM's at the start. BTW, was the "normal" FM also physics based? I thought that was table-based for some reason.

I will be very interested to see how KOE tackles the FM challenge.

LB

Wisconsin cheese? Chedder? Provolone?

Do you cut the cheese?

lol - just trying to be clear so as not to get jumped on. A couple of times I have made RB related comments only to get the "you guys think RB is perfect ... yada yada yada" spiel. For whatever reason, I do not feel as though I can be as relaxed here as on the Delphi boards, so some of my posts come across as a bit stiff.

Normal FM in RB is also physics based, but even more simplistic in its algorithms. Not positive, but I think "normal" FM uses a subset of the parameters in "advanced" FM.

As for RB, if I thought it was perfect or, in some aspects, even fixable, I wouldn't be waiting for KOE . I do not want KOE to be RB with better graphics. I want KOE to be RB with better graphics, FM, DM, AI, missions, squadron management, campaigns, ...

Gotcha PatWilson.

As for Von Helton, I did not insist such. I merely stated that it would be more likely that KOE would only be a snapshot of WWI and I'd rather have quality and a soon release date than quantity and a far off release date. [Troll deleted] As for going "My 5 year old game with WWI user-made aircraft is FAR better than the newer KOE with better 3d models and more realistic FMs that's a true stand alone WWI sim product..." well you get the idea... :rolleyes:

Thanks, guderian ente, for making me laugh out loud...I needed that. S!

I hope KOE is to WW1 flight what Il2FB is to WW2 flight games/sims/whatnot.

I believe KOE will be superior because it will have modern graphics and better DM and FM.
Will the offline campaign be better? Wait and see.
Will online play be better? Depends on how many can fly online, how much security the game has and what options are available for online wars.

Well here's a big cheezie smile for all those who have made past predictions of this or that on the KOE forum here......cause you're all full of hot air!

In the meantime it'll be fun to bring back this old post of mine now, to see how everyone has measured up over these past months:

So you wana be a KOE beta tester!

Here's some possible qualifications:

Demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter (of WWI aviation history, and of current flight sim developments in general)

An ability to communicate (through the written word, and constructively)

The ability to use cognitive skills (for the identification and reporting of errors or problems, which is the primary purpose of beta testing)

Perceived trustworthiness (since the beta testing process is meant to correct problems, not publicize them)

So how do you think you've scored?

I wonder if Aspect has their list of testers already worked up..........and for those who don't make the cut, well maybe you never got any of this in the first place.........

They may even decided to do just in house testing just to avoid the inevitable headaches.

[troll deleted]

Christ this place is pathetic, Von Helton is Von Helton, like him or hate him, he has his opinions and won't change, for better or worse. Hello mods????


[troll and bashing deleted PS I agree with your opinion this place needs to calm down]

VonHelton is who he is. However you know what they say: "If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em!" I refuse to let VonHelton be the only one here obnoxiously trying to prove a point. At least my points are valid ones with proof and cited sources! (See the Relax... thread)

Uh oh, no group hug for Jamm0r!