VikS
Some pics and diagrams are available. I'm expecting a new scanner next week, so could send you what I have then.

Neal,
The ideal head position was with the eye 5 inches from the sight. A reasonable amount of lateral movement was possable but not unlimited.
It had a front cap to protect from all that castor oil being thrown about. The rear fitting was to limit breakage of glass goggle lenses caused by unintentional collision. Turbulance etc.

Thanks for forwarding these additional details Dave!

Looks like the Aldis will be "spot on".

can't wait 2 get this s.o.b.!!

rgr!

Just posting to clarify a couple of things. I've gotten some PMs regarding a few comments I made earlier in this thread about flight model debates and another discussion on sound with Pritzl.

1) No, I'm not in a feud with Pritzl. I consider him to be a great guy and fun to fly with and against. We might disagree on some things, but jeez, it ain't no "feud". There a lot of things we agree on too.

2) My comments about FM debates were GENERAL comments about the some people thinking there would be no debate. It had nothing to do with Viks' team or their product. If anything, it was just a heads up warning to him to expect debate. Having once started a similar effort I somewhat knew what to expect. I have no ill will toward Viks and their effort. In fact, just the opposite concerning their project. I wish them the best of luck because I am a HUGE fan of WWI and anxiously await a good WWI sim.

Related to Sensei's comments (but in a generic sense only), my take on WWI FM's......we can expect no more, and we can expect no less (the process in the end comes down to intention and beliefs).

Allow me to characterize beforehand discussions on WWI flight modeling, and frame any future debate with a question.....how insistent can we be when talking of "vegetable" aeroplanes made of wood and linen, and powered as they were by the era's tempermental engines. I look foward to hard "rules" being forwarded about the "organic" nature of things.

As personal as people's likes can be, discussing WWI flight models in anything but a "generic" sense is ultimately an execise in assumptions, that one organic example is the same as another.

The whole process of discussing WWI flight models is framed on the assumption that each variant's example is the same as the next......impossible to maintain, but ultimately the only position for moving forward in crafting "WWI flight models".

(what we can expect is no more, and what we can expect is no less)

One of the most revealing parts of those pilot training links for me was the amount of maintanence they were expected to do.
If that translates to a pilot's individual aircraft in front line squadrons, I can envisage a progressive adjustment to suit a pilot's liking. Two pilots with varying styles could result in quite a difference.
I'd considered manufacture variations before and crew chief's skills but this was a new thought to me.

Dave,

Your points are well taken!

As a adjunct to my FM "variations" post above, are the issues of riggers skill and pilot preferences (and the bracing accuracy possible in regards to the art of ground-crew maintenance), and/or the state of quality control during the manufacturing process, and also the effects of inclement weather on airframes in the field.

There's the often told story of the Pfalz D.III which was found to have a bag of iron-filings under the pilot's seat as the factory's means of balancing CG on this particular aircraft, and also of the prevalence of the Pfalz's beautifully tapered fuselage to warp under wet conditions and time, imparting interesting aerodynamic qualities to the aircraft.

On the topic of airframe rigging, most ground crews followed the manufacturers instructions for bracing up a plane (with some squadrons/pilots being allowed changes), but how exacting could this overall process be? As an example view the figures on one of my favorite WWI aircraft, the Hannover CL.III, for setting up the incidence, diherdral, and stagger angles for its wings and horizontal stabilizers (typical):



How many specific bracing figures can someone note here?

This is why anecdotal "evidence" of WWI flying characteristics is, while being interesting to note, not totally productive when envisioning a process for actually coding "WWI flight models" for a sim........the very nature of the process requires a certain "generalized-exactitude".

(what we can expect is no more, and what we can expect is no less)

Mass production from assembly lines was only just getting into its stride during WWI. Most of these planes were very much made in workshops, with all the individual differences in fittings and bracings that that would entail.

A most helpful point for starting any discussion having to do with "WWI flight modeling".

Would like to see shells ejecting from guns like in Blue Max. Is this possible or too much stress on computers.

Naw, we have that in IL-2!

I want an animation of beating on the guns with a hammer!

That would be a good one Dart.......and the Spad 13 has a hammer too!

Hey Scott,

I would imagine you'll see ammo belts moving during firing, magazine drums rotating, synchronization mechanisms and MGs cycling, and belts, links, and shells ejecting, along with a bit of gunsmoke perhaps to set off the whole sequence nicely.

The curse of building greater modeling accuracy into sims means that you've got to do something with all the detail when it's made. Along with more simulation accuracy comes the neccessity of animating the objects that have been created.

I'm sure VikS will clarify what's in store for "Knights", but would be surprised if GT is not already working on the issue of gun firing animation.

Btw, have you seen the early developement shots of the Nieuport 17's cockpit? Check out the aileron linkage mechanism in this pic.....not only will the pilot's cockpit controls have to move, but the linkage that transfers the input motion to the control surfaces, and is in view, will need to move also:



Note the large bellcranks in the top wing above the cockpit, these were rotated by linked movement from the control stick, and rotated each aileron through a connected torque tube.....yep, they'll have to move too!

Yep, our flight sims are about to step up another level, IMO. All that flight sims are a dead end stuff is being swept away by the overall users' computer spec increase.
Elipsoid atmospherics are about to enter our combat world, amongst other things, that'll fascilitate wind shear and other localised wind effects. I'm really excited by the possabilities. Upwind n downwind legs are going to be a real challenge in WW1 period kites. WW2 bombers are going to have a real turbulance behind the stream.
I've seen the future and its really rather nice, with large portions of imersive animations. Now all we'll want is a hot castor oil and cordite aroma dispenser.

It's not as bad as you might think or at least with the technology of the times it didn't have to be.

When mass producing even back before 1850 there was use of jigs which were either made at the home factory or detailed drawings sent, the first task would be the toolmakers building jigs. A jig is a frame with places to hold the workpiece and to place tools against to make the cuts. Properly even on things as large as WWI aircraft frames the use of jigs should keep errors to perhaps a centimeter or less. Certainly frame parts from the same same lines fit together, had they not then a jig would have been changed or remade.

Improperly though and in practice as sometimes happened, people didn't follow plans so well and nobody cross checked with dismal results. It was not common but did happen, more in some places where 'craft' was held in a bit too much esteem in some shops. Example is that LMG the French dumped on the US troops who wished they'd brought their own.

Look at how interchangeable so much of pistol and rifle parts were from mid-1800's on. Or steam engine parts. The technology certainly existed in WWI. Even cars, trucks and motorcycles were made for part interchangeability.

That sounds fascinating Dave!

One of my greatest flying enjoyments was experiencing convection currents rise off the highways near the end of the grass airfield I flew ultralights out of back in the eighties. The roadbed was elevated at the end of the strip, and when you "cleared the hedge", you could feel the "bump" of the rising air when you traversed over the highway. Plowed dry fields also gave the same effect if you were low enough......it made one feel connected to the world, and at the same time liberated from it........

There's a classic WWI-era film clip showing Camels flying in tight formation from a 3/4 frontal view, and they're each pitching up and down as if rising over ocean waves. It'll be nice someday to see our simulated "dead" airspace replaced by a more active element. As you mentioned, vortex currents from wingtips and props also need to be considered someday. In a WWI sim, being able to blast the tail feathers with a burst from the engine would certainly make ground handling more effective (and realistic).

Sulky Boy, are you talkin' here about active air effects for FS X perhaps, and do tell us more about their inclusion into future combat flight sims (if you will).

Don't forget that this sim is not properly speaking a "new generation" sim, but is a sim based on the revised Il-2FB engine. I don't expect it too look VERY different from Il-2FB, and don't expect it to have dramatically new features.

If it sells really well, then I'm sure the team will be ready to move into something like BoB-sim territory...

The key Frey, is that it doesn't have to better than IL2....it pretty much just has to be better than RB3D... ;-)

I agree that we shuldn't set our sights too high.

WW1 action tends to play into the IL2 engine's strngths though, low altitude is where it looks best.

Exciting stuff and a welcome respite from the current fodder we are all flying. How about the wine and cheese? Is that included! Yum!