The thing of it is though that you do not know that for a fact and there is no way to prove it either. The numbers say it should fly and the game makes it fly. You base your knowledge of of how you "feel" it should be which IMHO is incorrect. I am going to go with the hard numbers and say that in real life they probably DID fly this way. I just doubt many of them went down in such a way that the damage to the wings were so extreme and so clean.

I think they could fix it by adding in a drag number that represents torn fabric and hanging fabric but at the end of the day I think the planes would still be able to fly.

To me your argument sounds like what killed the IL2 series for me. Too many people complaining about things they have no proof about and then the sim gets dumbed down to make it "feel" better to the vocal few. I pray to God that it does not happen to RoF.

+1

Oh my god! finally someone with sense!

I didn't make up the story about the DM and FM...this how they works in ROF!

Uhh, you do understand the phrase "not likely", don't you? It means I'm not saying, absolutely. (I'll go so far as to say that - in the absense of proof, 999 aeronautical engineers out of 1,000 would say "not likely", rather than "yes" or "no".)

No, I have no proof - nor does anyone else. I didn't say I had any proof. (Looking back) uhh, nope; didn't say that anywhere.

Thing is, no one has any "proof" the plane would fly that way, either.

And the 'numbers' are - according to someone posting on this thread (who seems to know) - only as good as current desktop PC technology will support. I hardly think that's an argument that they're foolproof. In fact, it seems to say (to me) they're known to be flawed - just that it's not the programming's fault.

Anyway, my point wasn't that, at all. You're so busy arguing that I said something (which I did not say) that you missed the point. My point was that people are disappointed when this happens - they clearly don't expect this, and it's because they were lead to expect something else.

An image of an H-P O/400 I just shot down. Notice similar but much less damage, and more remaining wing. Still, the old bird's doing pretty much what you imagine she would - heading in for a dirt nap.

I'm sure someone's going to ring in and say it behaves differently in this case because the damage is differnt - which is absolutely true. But, it remains that - even with a lot more wing left - this one's headed in. Seems "not likely" to me that one damaged as in the OP's post would stay up.

Absolutely not.

This one has a large imbalance of lifting surface with the left side still having it's wings while the right side has a part of the upper left; thus the plane spins to the right..which will surely trigger breaking of the left wings due to weakened struts and increase in drag due to the spin..

The other situation had a stabilized lift solution. Again, weight, drag, aoa, pfactor, parasite drag, masking etc..all of this is modeled in rof and the FM doesn't stop being complex as you have damage, it is the same all the way through.

It is the very root of a modern physics engine to calculate the forces and torques on parts (that's called a hierarchical physic model) thus if ROF makes the plane fly it is that is calculated it can fly.

The limitation of the engine that could lead to not being flyable BUT it is not a confirmation that the plane would not fly are turbulence effect due to damaged geometry that are clearly too complex to calculate for now and if some aero-mechanical couplings were too high frequency but that not the case in the picture posted.

While we'd like to think that the thousands of monetary units we've spent on our systems would buy us the best virtual reality CFS experience possible, and IMHO it has, I think we all can agree that this is just that, VR. We have limitations despite the sophistication and 'exceptions' will crop up every-now-and-then. Frustrating, perhaps, room for improvement, always, but enjoy it and move on.
I'm satisfied.

Given Ogamis full and detailed explination, I am surprised that this isnt understood.

The HP400 with a large portion of both wings and just one engine is flying because it has enough speed to generate enough lift to keep it up. Eventually though it will crash as it wont be able to maintain that speed.

Its not spinning because there is more wing on the left so the increased lift is balancing the weight of the engine. For a PC sim, thats pretty clever. The AI has enough control via elevator and rudder to keep it relatively stable, that again is pretty clever.

It appears counter intuative though, because its suffered what appears to be catastropic damage. Is it realistic? That is the key because we all want (777 included, belive me) the most realistic sim possible.

It could be that one of the elements that Ogami listed as not being modelled could affect its stability. If so then its not realistic, but the limits are there for a reason, one of resources (both of your PC and the devs)

It could be that it is possible by some miracle that it could fly (like that F15, and picture Mig posted) both counter intuative. The fact is that its a PC sim and 777 dont have an unlimited budget. Im sure it would be possible to model a sim that takes all of the forces that ogami listed. But it may be impossible if you want that same sim to feature high end graphics, sound, and AI and to run on a range of PCs.

I have played every single sim (including X-plane) released I have never seen such a high fidelity FM or DM as in ROF. Is it perfect? No because of the reasons already indicated. Perhaps in time when PCs get even more powerful, but its pretty damn close 99% of the time.

So no, its not a bug. To fix it would actually be to add more features to the game. Semantics but important ones.

Airforce's around the world spend hundreds of thousands if not millions on simulators to train pilots. They get as near to real as they can. We on the other hand have a couple of thousand on the highest end PC and a $40 dollar software title and expect the same result!!
Bandy is exactly right, given what I've spent and the end result, I'm satisfied too.

However after saying that...

Although I'm not an expert in aero dynamics that first shot in this thread would suggest to me that the damaged aircraft would be able to create enough generated lift over the wing surface to enable it to stay in the air (given enough speed to weight) rather than drop like a stone. It obviously wouldn't be able to keep alt or do a couple of landing circuits. But I would imagine a steep decent and hard landing would not be out of the question.

I don't see an issue given my first statement nor do I see an issue given my second statement.

Also totally agree with Ogami, Knowbreaks example is not a relevant comparison. While the damage looks less, the lift generated on the remaining wing would tip any aircraft over.

One documented example of a theoretically unlikely occurrence:

From High Adventure, by James Hall 1917/18

"Novices begin their training, at a Bleriot monoplane school, in Penguins — low-powered machines with clipped wings, which are not capable of leaving the ground.

The beginners' class did not start work with the others, owing to the fact that the Penguins, driven by unaccustomed hands, covered a vast amount of ground in their rolling sorties back and forth across the field.

Exclusive of the Penguin, there were seven classes, graded according to their degree of advancement. These, in their order, were the rolling class (a second-stage Penguin class, in which one still kept on the ground, but in machines of higher speed); the first flying class — short hops across the field at an altitude of two or three metres; the second flying class, where one learned to mount to from thirty to fifty metres, and to make landings without the use of the motor; tour de piste (A) — flights about the aerodrome in a forty-five horse-power Bleriot; tour de piste (B)—similar flights in a fifty horse-power machine; the spiral class, and the brevet class.

Accidents began to happen, the first one when one of the "old family cuckoos," as the rolling machines were disdainfully called, showed a sudden burst of old-time speed and left the ground in an alarming manner.
It was evident that the man who was driving it, taken completely by surprise, had lost his head, and was working the controls erratically. First he swooped upward, then dived, tipping dangerously on one wing. In this sudden emergency he had quite forgotten his newly acquired knowledge. I wondered what I would do in such a strait, when one must think with the quickness and sureness of instinct. My heart was in my mouth, for I felt certain that the man would be killed. As for the others who were watching, no one appeared to be excited. A moniteur near me said, "Oh, la la! II est perdu!" in a mild voice. The whole affair happened so quickly that I was not able to think myself into a similar situation before the end had come. At the last, the machine made a quick swoop downward, from a height of about fifty metres, then careened upward, tipped again, and diving sidewise, struck the ground with a sickening rending crash, the motor going at full speed. For a moment it stood, tail in air; then slowly the balance was lost, and it fell, bottom up, and lay silent."

A penguin, designed not to fly, flew.



Breese Penguin
Specifications:
Wingspan: 14'4"
Length: 19'2"
Top Speed: 35 mph
Engine: 28hp Lawrance

Farmingdale, 1918
During World War One the Army wanted to develop a non-flying trainer which would give student pilots the feel of airplane controls at near-flying speeds, without the danger of actual flight. The only aircraft of this type produced was by the Breese Aircraft Corporation of Farmingdale. In 1917 Breese received a contract for 300 trainers called "Penguins". The Penguin's wings were too short and its engine too small to allow it to fly. They were equipped with engines built by Lawrance which was also located in Farmingdale. These "aircraft" were intended to be just as unmanageable as real aircraft, thus they had no brakes or steerable wheels - which made them quite difficult to control. This original is the sole surviving example.

Cradle of Aviation Museum Long Island NY

Knowbreaks aircraft is in exactly the same state as mine was, just before the wings fell off. Another post (I think on the RoF forums) shows the O/400 landed in exactly the same physical condition as my original post. It seems that the DM works in a controlled progression; i.e if you lose the left engine then the wings will break, left first, right next, until you have old stumpy still flying along happily. Would these failures work in such a pre-defined order every time IRL?



So, until men land on the moon and meat comes in little boxes, we'll just have to enjoy having the ability to land wingless aircraft in this sim. Oh well.

I really think you should re-read mine and some other posts. It seems you didn't understand fully why the plane spins in the first place then flies "normally" after that.

If after that you still want it to spin like hell..i guess you'll be frustrated for some time.

ROF's doing more dynamic damage and fm modelling than other sims, its a step forward but technology limitations sometimes produce results that look a bit odd.

Rather than saying "80% damage time for the canned death spiral" ROF is actually calaculating and making dynamic fm changes based on the damage taken. This approach is the way to go and I think all sims will do this from now on. Yes there are a few times when the canned result would have looked better but for the other 90% of the time ROF's approach is much more dynamic, realistic and..... fun.

That is the point I was trying to make. The fact that the RoF engine predicts that the plane could fly in this circumstance does not mean that the same result would have happened in real life. Commercial flight simulations are too simple to calculate all the factors that affect a real airplane. They have their limits which show up when you get to this type of the edge of the envelope situation. RoF probably works well in say 99% of situations and may be off base the other 1%, but it is just a game after all, nothing to get worked up over.

What you say is true; especially in stall regimes.

However the military simulators are not better in terms of physics; in fact they are more accurate because the engineers have access to all the flight test data and thus they can have very accurate results.

But as far as physics behavior are modeled (like damage) you'll be surprise to learn that ROF is probably a generation ahead any military simulator.
+ in ROF AI and piloted plane are driven by the same FM...this is not true in pro military sims; the pilot plane is dead on performance wise, the AI is sometimes...very funky.


In ROF the limitation is that in stall regimes, the physics are very hard to calculate because of turbulence effects (too hard for now) and unfortunately not because of confidentiality but simply because such data did not exist at the time we can't have all the aerodynamic data that a professional military sim uses..

Which is why you can have discrepancies with stall and spin behaviors.

that said, it doesn't mean the pictured situation is wrong, it means we don't have a reality-like accuracy in those conditions so we don't know..if the situation is simple in term of physics behavior the plane flies accordignly to reality, if not then it is possible it doesn't fly.

But so far, no one here bring arguments to prove it..to the contrary we've given a correct explanation on why it could fly under this situation.

Once again: My point wasn't whether the plane in the OP's pic would have flown or not - in my opinion, it would not, and that opinion is shared by others here.

I didn't say it absolutely wouldn't fly, or that there was any "proof" one way or the other.

Further, I have no problem with enjoying the sim as it is, and I do enjoy it.

My point was, as I explained: The concerns expressed here are a product of what folks would expect, given what they've been told.


But, we're told "The detailed damage model leaves no room for error"

There's my point - this conflict has arisen because people were given cause to expect something that isn't what it's claimed to be.

Also:


That's not accurate. Your 'correct' explanations on why the plane could fly are no more valid than those offering explanations that it could not. Your argument isn't more valid just because you can say all the math is there...by your own admission, the math being applied is limited by current desktop technology.

Neither is proof. You don't bring proof it will fly, nor do they bring proof that it won't fly. You bring an argument that it could; they bring an equally informed argument that it could not.

You've made it clear that any discrepancies are due to the limitations of the technology; I think we all understand that, and it's fair enough. I haven't said anywhere that I don't accept your explanation - because I do.

But: Regardless of where the error occurs - or why - you've already acknowledged that it will occur. And that anomolies like the OP's can occur because of it.

As I've explained, for every real life instance of a plane flying with that level of damage, there are likely thousands of instances where the plane did not fly. Meaning that, in most cases, one would expect that the plane would not fly that way.

*lol* Let me ask you this: If it's so obvious that the plane should fly as you all suppose, why on earth would anyone be surpised when it does?

And the answer is, "They're surprised, because it seems unlikely." (And, saying the math is all there doesn't really mean they're any less surprised. I think everyone understands the reason it happens is because the math says it should, of course. Yet, they're still surprised...for a reason)

I've explained why their arguments were not valid. It was said that:

-The visual DM didn't correspond to the FM I.E there's more parts in the FM than the DM shows: I explained that this is impossible with ROF physics engine
-The engine weight on the left is not compensated on the right: I've explained that the two wing elements present offer more lift than on the right (where you have only one upper elements left) so that there's no torque and that the situation is balanced for the FM and that it is realistic if you only consider this problem.
-The engine's blades p-factor would in real life make the plane spin: i answered P factor is taken into account in ROF and thus the situation depicted showed no P-factor related problems (the plane has not a large AOA)
-That the FM is wrong when damaged: the FM is of the same complexity with or without damage
-The numbers (results) are incorrect i.e there's more lift than in reality: this is the only point where yes you can have a difference but not because of missing parts only because of geometry (and thus turbulent flow) of the damaged parts; there can't be MORE lift than in reality by missing parts because the DM contains less parts than the FM thus you always have at best the correct loss or more, never less lift lost.

So yes, while room for inaccuracies exists due to limitation of current processing power, i've answered all the arguments here with facts, real facts not what "it seems to me" but facts.

So i didn't prove it can fly, i proved the arguments bring to say it can't aren't valid and that makes a big difference.





No. I've said in some circumstances (within ALL possible DM related situation, which tends to infinity) you will have not realistic behaviors not that in this case you have errors.




"Likely"? "Explained"? ????? remind me when did you showed us that occurance of real life H400 having that precise damage state crashing thousands of instances?



But do you realize that you are opposing a scientific reasoning with common belief?!

When something is of "common sense"..the physical explanation should be easy, yet each time someone says "it's common sense" they are unable to provide with the correct physical explanation; just that "it is obvious that" or "it seems wrong etc.."
That you want it or not simulator are driven by mathematical models so are sciences of nature;




I"m sorry but there's absolutely no solid reasoning behind what you say; So that because people are "surprised" for a reason that probably they don't even know themselves the behavior is wrong???

I'm really speechless at such thing; excuse me that's not the first time i see it and the problem is that when you enter serious maths/physics related discussion (yes i recall you the physic engin is maths driven) there's nobody anymore...

Let me ask you something:

Let's say you and the other "surprised" are right and that i'm convinced of your right; I'll go to petrovich(the lead engineer at 777) and say "Hey petrovich! You made it wrong my friend! this behavior is completely unrealistic! please change it!"

Petrovich will ask "What is wrong? what should i change in the physic engine to make it realistic"

What will you answer to petrovich?

I have, and what's more I've gone back and read your postings back catalogue. What they show is that here is someone who's 'inside knowldege' of the game as a beta-tester has given him an inflated sense of his own importance, and who loves to quote realms of technical 'facts' at anyone who arrives at a conclusion different to his own. Add to that a latent arrogance and aggressive streak (calling someone 'captain obvious' in your very first post in this thread, for example) and I realise why I am getting absolutely nowhere in trying to discuss this with you.

So, from here on, no more. It's the Ignore List for you, and as that means I won't have to read any more of your techno-drivel I'll be so glad.

I would suggest he looks at the calculations that have determined that the port side wing hasn't suffered a complete structural failure at the wing root. In its current state, that wing is a very slender cantilever with the fuselage and half its weight suspended from a single point (the inverted v struts above the centreline). Once the lower port side wing failed and the struts outboard of the engine came away, the upper wing should quickly follow.

All the aerodynamic discussion above is largely irrelevant when the wing breaks off.

Please note, the odd funny anomally like this doesn't bother me in the least, but you did ask, so I thought I'd answer you.

Good remark, but are you sure about it just by the picture? Of course the wing is now transferring load via the center strut which is quite low (normal..not meant to be cantilever wing) that said the strut are also there for twisting and bending resistance as well as helping with the lower wing support of the engine, with that all gone and slow speed of flight meaning lift still present, i don't know; What do you think of it?

Anyway i have said some aero-mechanical couplings may still be not accurate.


P.S:i do not bother with it to...it's interesting to speak about it.