Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#3153694 - 12/09/10 02:08 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Dunkers]  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,623
Mogster Offline
Hotshot
Mogster  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,623
England
I find those sorts of "ROF wrecks" are only controllable when you have alt to turn into speed, once you drop the speed the stabilitys gone and you start spinning or somesuch. I'm sure its the same for the AI (the old AI 2 seaters have simplified DM and FM I think).

Fly or crash is only being calculated in purely aerodynamic terms, there's lots of other factors that aren't being considered. I still like trying to fly these heavilly damaged planes though, even if its not 100% realistic.


WAS C2D 8500 3.16ghz, 285gtx 1gb, 4gig ram, XP NOW Win7 64, I5 2500K, SSD, 8Gig ram, GTX 570
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#3153714 - 12/09/10 02:33 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: 2Lt_Joch]  
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,984
Master Offline
meh
Master  Offline
meh
Veteran

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,984
Originally Posted By: 2Lt_Joch
Going back to the HP/400 pictured above, there should be a point at which the program says "this plane is no longer controllable" at which point it would enter into a spin and crash.


If the AI is flying it sure but if it is a human flying then they should be given the full ability to try and put it down. If doesnt make sense for the computer to arbitrarily state that a plane isnt flyable when the pilot still thinks it is.

#3153716 - 12/09/10 02:35 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Ogami_musashi]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 419
2Lt_Joch Offline
Member
2Lt_Joch  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 419
Montreal, Canada.
Originally Posted By: Ogami_musashi
...mmm The F-15D has no FBW system.


"Control Augmentation System" if you want to get picky...


http://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_flight_control_system.htm

http://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_yaw_control.html

That F-15 would have been unflyable without CAS even if it theoretically had enough "lift".



Intel Q9550, Gyga P35-DS3R, XFX 6950 XXX, 27" widescreen, 8 g. DDR2 @800, 2xWDRaptor 36g HD @ RAID 0, 1tb WD Caviar black HD, X-Fi Fatal1ty, win 7 64bit ultimate, Cougar/FSSB/HS1, Tir4.
pilot
#3153728 - 12/09/10 02:50 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Ogami_musashi]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 8,926
ArgonV Offline
Hotshot
ArgonV  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 8,926
College Station, Texas, USA
Originally Posted By: Ogami_musashi

Possible incompatibilites with real life are:

-Changes in AR, modeled in ROF
-Changes in AOA of surfaces, modeled in ROF
-Changes in COG: modeled in ROF
-Development of assymetrical flows: not modeled in ROF
-Turbulence induced force: Not modeled in ROF
-Parasite drag induced turbulence: Not modeled in ROF
-Abrupt changes in CL due to the four above points: Not modeled in ROF


This is interesting... I can see the reason why parasite drag is not modeled because of the CPU power required to do it. However, when you lose a wing, is it possible for the ROF physics engine to add more drag to that surface? In SDOE (And FS-WWI) we've come up with a way (Though not on all aircraft as it's time consuming for us to do) to add drag to places on a wing surface when part of a wing is broken off.


"Go Fly A Kite!"
-Jason R.
FS-WWI Project Leader
FS-WWI Plane Pack Site

Intel i9 10900k
Gigabyte Z490 Aorus Elite AC
64GB Corsair DDR4 2933 Vengeance RGB Pro
AMD XFX 7900 XTX Merc310 Black Edition
LG UltraGear 38GN95B-B 38" monitor
Corsair HX1200 PSU
1TB EVO 980 Pro M.2 PCIe x4 SSD
2TB EVO 980 Pro M.2 PCIe x4 SSD
Two 2TB EVO 860 SSDs
Sound Blaster ZxR
Win 10 x64 Pro
HOTAS Cougar #4069 w/Uber II Nxt mod #284 & UTM bushings
#3153821 - 12/09/10 04:34 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Dunkers]  
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 165
Ogami_musashi Offline
Member
Ogami_musashi  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 165
2lt_Joch:

The F-15 CAS system is a system done for better performance and ease of pilotage, not controlling stability like true FBW; But what's is much more relevant to the topic here is that even if the F-15 went back due to its CAS, this absolutely not makes the point that the H400 should not because it didn't have such a system; You're in a logical fallacy there;


Again, ROF may lack some destabilizing effects, but there nothing like a "bug" and saying "this plane is no longer controllable" is completly unpractical in a simulator; That's the story of 20 years of progress in simulator to have motion driven by physics and not by statements anymore so if the planes flies that is because the equations behind it returns enough lift and sufficient stability to fly; Conversely, progresses on some simplification in the physics engine would certainly not lead to planes being unctrolable 100% of the time as reality as shown (and the F-15D is not the only example; just some posts ago you have WWI examples of planes flying with largely reduced surfaces).


ArgonV:

It does, in fact by the reduction in AR, changes of COG and AOA Drag varies; The thing is, and it stands for stalls and spins, in reality turbulent flows that develop purely because of local geometry have huge effects.

For example the SU-22 had a flat spin behavior stopped by the presence of a probe on its right side; The probe re-established the symmetry of flows thus giving back control surface efficiency to stop it; Likely, the SU-27 ability to execute the cobra is down to a large lever but its ability to hold there is due to the absence of assymetric flows development.

All those things requires flow simulations. It already exists for some parts (in a clever way) in ROF (for example the propwash is not a simple cylinder but vortex from blade tips are modeled) but for wings it is very very far away in term of raw air molecules simulation.


However for sure those couplings (a damaged part affecting the aeros) is a subject of research for the future smile

#3153917 - 12/09/10 06:34 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Dunkers]  
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,456
Dunkers Offline
Member
Dunkers  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,456
England
I really can't see why some of you are debating semantics over this. The remains of this aircraft could not have maintained steady flight in 1918 or at any time, no matter what happens in a simulation. Look at the size of the wing Handley Page built onto it; they were that big for a very good reason. The reality of the situation is that the damage model in RoF is very good, UP TO A POINT, then it goes all to pot. (Collision with solid objects is another area that can be improved on.) As somebody mentioned, in RoF no wings is better than one wing, for the forces acting on that one wing affect the aircraft proportionately; but when there aren't any wings the plane adopts a whole new flight model.
For those who are interested here's the whole sequence.

1. Engine on fire. No other damage. Aircraft descending in shallow spiral due to imbalance in power.


2. Engine falls off, causing both left wings to break away. Aircraft begins to roll violently downward.


3. Almost immediately the extra stress on the right wings causes the struts to begin breaking, leading to loss of most of the right wings.


4. Right wings having broken away the aircraft adopts a shallow, under control, spiral once more.


The damage and physics modelling are fine until step 4, then something happens (to other RoF aircraft as well) that is totally unrealistic.

Originally Posted By: Ogami_musashi
Thus it is impossible in ROF that the physical DM induces a loss than is not counted by the FM.
So if the plane still flies it is that in theory it has enough lifting surface vs weight period.
So somewhere in here the numbers are wrong.

It does need fixing, and it's good to know that RoF are working on it.
cheers


Once upon a time there was dunkelgrun...
#3153924 - 12/09/10 06:42 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Dunkers]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 419
2Lt_Joch Offline
Member
2Lt_Joch  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 419
Montreal, Canada.
Originally Posted By: Dunkers


4. Right wings having broken away the aircraft adopts a shallow, under control, spiral once more.






...the crew don't look too worried... Smile2


Intel Q9550, Gyga P35-DS3R, XFX 6950 XXX, 27" widescreen, 8 g. DDR2 @800, 2xWDRaptor 36g HD @ RAID 0, 1tb WD Caviar black HD, X-Fi Fatal1ty, win 7 64bit ultimate, Cougar/FSSB/HS1, Tir4.
pilot
#3153955 - 12/09/10 07:33 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Master]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 419
2Lt_Joch Offline
Member
2Lt_Joch  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 419
Montreal, Canada.
Originally Posted By: Master
Originally Posted By: 2Lt_Joch
Going back to the HP/400 pictured above, there should be a point at which the program says "this plane is no longer controllable" at which point it would enter into a spin and crash.


If the AI is flying it sure but if it is a human flying then they should be given the full ability to try and put it down. If doesnt make sense for the computer to arbitrarily state that a plane isnt flyable when the pilot still thinks it is.


agreed.


Intel Q9550, Gyga P35-DS3R, XFX 6950 XXX, 27" widescreen, 8 g. DDR2 @800, 2xWDRaptor 36g HD @ RAID 0, 1tb WD Caviar black HD, X-Fi Fatal1ty, win 7 64bit ultimate, Cougar/FSSB/HS1, Tir4.
pilot
#3154021 - 12/09/10 08:57 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Dunkers]  
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 165
Ogami_musashi Offline
Member
Ogami_musashi  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 165
This no semantics; this is how the FM works; There's no "damaged plane FM" or such; it is the same from take off to landing through spins and stalls.

Your last picture shows nothing unrealistic; You have Two wings elements on the left supporting the weight of the last engine present; On the right, since you right engine is gone the upper part is sufficient to fly.

Again no magic or whatsoever, ROF physics engine calculates forces and torques on the remaining parts and:

-If the normal forces at least equal the weight it flies
-If the total torque is zero it flies stable...


For the third time, unrealistic behavior can come from lack of effects simulated (like the one i quoted), but there's nothing "wrong with the numbers".

There's no bug or whatsoever; You had one in the early days of ROF, the ailerons were still present while the visual part was destroyed, it has been corrected long time ago.

So yes yes you'll find situations where ROF is not realistic, but this one; past some turbulence related effect doesn't seem unrealistic and is not fancy by ROF physics engine;

What i want to stress out is that if you expect a fix to a bug that is not a bug (but a technology limitation) ..you'll wait long time my friend.

#3154043 - 12/09/10 09:43 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Dunkers]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 8,926
ArgonV Offline
Hotshot
ArgonV  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 8,926
College Station, Texas, USA
In that last picture I see nothing really wrong either. Looking at the picture, on the right the upper wing is bent more up causing more lift and inducing some roll. Also the engine is missing thus decreasing weight and drag on that side. Look at the left side of that picture, you've got the weight and drag of the engine as well as the less bend up top wing. You do have more bottom wing, however this is mostly counter-balanced by the weight and drag of the engine. Granted you probably could not take off like this, but you should beable to maintain a relatively slow descent corrected by the rudder and elevators.


"Go Fly A Kite!"
-Jason R.
FS-WWI Project Leader
FS-WWI Plane Pack Site

Intel i9 10900k
Gigabyte Z490 Aorus Elite AC
64GB Corsair DDR4 2933 Vengeance RGB Pro
AMD XFX 7900 XTX Merc310 Black Edition
LG UltraGear 38GN95B-B 38" monitor
Corsair HX1200 PSU
1TB EVO 980 Pro M.2 PCIe x4 SSD
2TB EVO 980 Pro M.2 PCIe x4 SSD
Two 2TB EVO 860 SSDs
Sound Blaster ZxR
Win 10 x64 Pro
HOTAS Cougar #4069 w/Uber II Nxt mod #284 & UTM bushings
#3154082 - 12/09/10 10:56 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Dunkers]  
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,456
Dunkers Offline
Member
Dunkers  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,456
England
clapping You guys kill me! Arguing that black is white. If you REALLY think that, in the real world, that wreck could fly under control then... I give up. goodnight


Once upon a time there was dunkelgrun...
#3154095 - 12/09/10 11:25 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Dunkers]  
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,612
KRT_Bong Offline
It's KRT not Kurt
KRT_Bong  Offline
It's KRT not Kurt
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,612
Sarasota, Florida
One has to imagine the arguments of learned men in decades past arguing over theories about such things they had no computer or method to test. They would sound absurd to us now.


Windows 10 Pro
Gigabyte 970A DS3P FX
AMD FX6300 Vishera 3.5 Ghz
ASUS STRIX GeForce GTX 970 Overclocked 4 GB DDR5
16Gb Patriot Viper 3 RAM DDR3 1866Mhz
Onikuma Gaming Headset (has annoying blue lights I don't use)
#3154174 - 12/10/10 01:59 AM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Dunkers]  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,260
Tiger27 Offline
Member
Tiger27  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,260
Perth, Western Australia
Still looks too me as if there is an issue between the FM and the visuals that are being displayed, assuming the fm is correct within the limitations of current computers, wouldn't it be better just to adjust the graphic too show a bit more wing surface remaining?


III/JG11_Tiger
#3154225 - 12/10/10 03:50 AM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Dunkers]  
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,562
Cold_Gambler Offline
Member
Cold_Gambler  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,562
I'm going to go with the "there's no way that thing could stay in controlled flight" camp... leaving aside the fact that there's so little lifting surface area left, the weight of the left engine without the balancing weight of the missing right engine, and the asymmetrical thrust should spin it into the ground.

I think the best theory to explain it is a discrepancy between the visuals and the underlying FM... but as it stands somethin' ain't right, imho.


looks very modernishy-phoney-windows eighty-tabletty like

Asus P8P67 Pro Rev. 3.0 // i5 2500k @4.3 GHz with Noctua NH-D14 // nvidia gtx 780 // 8 GB DDR3 1600 //Win7 home 64 bit //450 GB VelociRaptor //Recon3D Champion
#3154957 - 12/11/10 01:33 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Dunkers]  
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,612
KRT_Bong Offline
It's KRT not Kurt
KRT_Bong  Offline
It's KRT not Kurt
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,612
Sarasota, Florida
You know it kinda looks like the box kites I had as a kid, and if the wind was right, and you had a feller out front with a big piece of string tied to it, and he were to run really fast..... exitstageleft


Windows 10 Pro
Gigabyte 970A DS3P FX
AMD FX6300 Vishera 3.5 Ghz
ASUS STRIX GeForce GTX 970 Overclocked 4 GB DDR5
16Gb Patriot Viper 3 RAM DDR3 1866Mhz
Onikuma Gaming Headset (has annoying blue lights I don't use)
#3154975 - 12/11/10 02:20 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Ogami_musashi]  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Dart Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Dart  Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
Originally Posted By: Ogami_musashi


....bunch of stuff.....

What i want to stress out is that if you expect a fix to a bug that is not a bug (but a technology limitation) ..you'll wait long time my friend.



And that's the real answer, IMHO.

If the bomber could fly in controlled flight with one engine and wings that short while carrying bombs and a crew of four they'd of built it that way.

It's a rare and really weird set of circumstances that somehow fits the parameters of the FM, but not reality. Weight, P factor, etc., would make this functionally unflyable in the real world. But it's not a USAF flight simulator designed to teach pilots how to fight and survive in actual combat, it's built for our home PC's for entertainment purposes.


The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.com

From Laser:
"The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
#3154999 - 12/11/10 03:08 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Dart]  
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,984
-Avatar- Offline
Senior Member
-Avatar-  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,984
CT, USA
Originally Posted By: Dart
...But it's not a USAF flight simulator designed to teach pilots how to fight and survive in actual combat, it's built for our home PC's for entertainment purposes.


Now there you go again old spoil-sport Dart! Bringing us all back to Earth again... biggrin


Avatar

Asus P8Z68 Deluxe, i7 2700k @4.7GHz, EVGA GTX570HD 301.42s, 1x120gb SSD, 2x150gb WD Raptors, 2x200gb SATA, 16gb G.Skill DDR3 2130, 1000W PS, HP DVD-RW, Onboard sound, 32" Sony Bravia XBR, Win7 Pro 64bit, Tai Chi watercooled case
#3155004 - 12/11/10 03:17 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Dart]  
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,456
Dunkers Offline
Member
Dunkers  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,456
England
Originally Posted By: Dart
Originally Posted By: Ogami_musashi


....bunch of stuff.....

What i want to stress out is that if you expect a fix to a bug that is not a bug (but a technology limitation) ..you'll wait long time my friend.



And that's the real answer, IMHO.

If the bomber could fly in controlled flight with one engine and wings that short while carrying bombs and a crew of four they'd of built it that way.

It's a rare and really weird set of circumstances that somehow fits the parameters of the FM, but not reality. Weight, P factor, etc., would make this functionally unflyable in the real world. But it's not a USAF flight simulator designed to teach pilots how to fight and survive in actual combat, it's built for our home PC's for entertainment purposes.



Still looks stupid though doesn't it? When everything else in the sim is modelled to such a high standard it seems odd to leave such an obvious immersion killer in. I still believe that RoF team could tweak the FM/DMs to make sure that aircraft in this state aren't able to enter controlled flight. And that's the big issue here - CONTROLLED flight.

cheers


Once upon a time there was dunkelgrun...
#3155008 - 12/11/10 03:18 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Dunkers]  
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 165
Ogami_musashi Offline
Member
Ogami_musashi  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 165
I give up...

#3155063 - 12/11/10 05:21 PM Re: Errr... c'mon Jason, guys, this needs sorting out! [Re: Dunkers]  
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 218
KnowBreaks Offline
Member
KnowBreaks  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 218
I do have to say that, whether (the opinions in this thread are) right wrong or indifferent...NeoQB/777 has essentially brought this sort of issue upon themselves.

Me, personally, I've come to like this sim fairly well. It still isn't a 9 or 10 (of 10) in my book; few games ever really were...more like a 7 now, up from a 6 while back. It will be closer to an 8 once all features are complete, a full stable of aircraft from throughout the war are available, maps/seasons of the entire war are built-in, integrated campaign and (pointless argument but) get rid of the DRM, could be an 8.5, maybe a 9.

But, back to my original point: NeoQB/777 has made a huge and very public point of saying how advanced the FM/DM for this sim are. Now, I think we can all agree the graphics are magnificent. But, I've never been satisified that the DM/FM are all that advanced, and this sort of seems to prove the point.

Regardless of why it seems that hulk is allowed to fly on in RoF, I think you'd have to admit it's genuinely not likely to happen in real life.

Maybe by some odd miracle, in one case of a million, sure...but then, I'd bet that in RoF - given the exact same situation (same damage at same points, same flight conditions, etc), that plane's going to fly on, every single time. And that's just not possible in real life.

So, if the limit happens to be in the curent technology, to me it doesn't matter - it affects how 'advanced', exactly, the FM/DM can be. And if the 'advanced' FM/DM allow this to happen...well, even if it's because of the limitations of technology, it's not light years ahead...it's not night and day from what we've seen elsewhere...it's...well, the same.

After all...they don't advertise that it's a "decent FM/DM, given the limits of desktop technology"...

What is said (directly from the 777 website, mind you), is: "The detailed damage model leaves no room for error". No room for error, wow; that's pretty darn specific.

When you say something like that, as a sales pitch, or for whatever reason, you're building a certain expectation.

Later on, well, if anyone feels that the plane in this thread continuing to fly was little a bit much (and it seems quite a few here do)...

...maybe it's because you lead folks to expect something entirely different.

Just saying.


System Specs:
Intel Core i7-930, OC @ 3.36G
Scythe Grand Kama Cross HS/F
Gigabyte GA-X58-USB3 mainboard
2x Seagate 500G Barracuda (RAID0; C:)
6G OCZ Gold Edition DDR3/10666 Triple Channel
eVGA GTX570 1280M GDDR5 PCIe2.0x16
AMCC/3Ware 9650SE SATA 3G/s RAID controller:
4x OCZ 30G SATA 3G/s Vertex SSD (RAID0; D:)
Corsair TX-750 PSU, CoolerMaster CM-690 case; 4x 120mm fans
TrackIR 5 & TrackClip Pro
Windows7 x64 Home Premium
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  RacerGT, Wklink 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0