Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
#4075938 - 02/09/15 02:20 PM Oh no ! Not another FM topic.  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,187
Damocles Offline
Member
Damocles  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,187
Inverness Scotland
Not specifically.

I've played both RoF and BoS since they first arrived and have enjoyed both. I have also shaken my head and even complained about what I perceive to be errors in the game.

Having enjoyed RoF immensely for a couple of years I finally stopped playing because I just couldn't bring myself to accept what was being said by the developers about the FM's and the overall combat experience that I actually got. It just didn't fit with my perception of WW 1 air combat.

BoS, I will continue to play, having stopped because of the locks (laziness and being time poor rather than a fit of extreme umbridge). However, while far less concerned about FM inconsistencies in BoS, there still lurks the ever heated debates about aircraft FM's, of which I play no part.

Having spent several years wondering about the various FM's and why there always seemed to be a bit of chasm between expectations and what was provided, it recently occurred to me as to possibly why.

I have always enjoyed the feeling of flight that RoF/BoS provides, on doubt provided by it's physics engine approach to constructing flight models, more so than other flight sim titles out there. 777 have always defended their FM constructions and the ability of the lead engineer. Mistakes there obviously are and these are usually rectified in various patches, however a gap still exist between expectation and that which is provided.

What is going on ?

I think it simply boils down to the fact that the difference between many of the aircraft is very slender, when it comes to design or engineering. These differences however can have a profound impact in the game of one up manship between different manufacturers, what wins and what loses. What we end up with however, because all data is technical and not anecdotal and because of the limitations of computational power, is a very rough approximation of an individual aircraft such that we end up with a very bland set of aircraft, defined by their major structural elements, but without the subtleties that defined them.

The FM's, as suggested by 777 are on the whole correct (excepting the odd mistake) but none excel because the FM constructions just don't go deep enough to distinguish between aircraft. It is the only reason I can think of why two similar aircraft by different developers (DCS/BoS) can behave so differently. While I am less enamoured by the feeling of flight in DCS, I suspect they model the subtleties of individual aircraft far better that the characteristics of those aircraft have a better chance of showing through. In BoS we, unfortunately, end up with a bland approximation that defines nothing, which is not so much the fault of the FM engineer, but the limitations of what he has to work with.

With that said I don't see how 777 or the community can move beyond the current impasse. Either 777 start to adjust their FM's using a wider field of data (anecdotal) to fill in the gaps, as imperfect as that might be, or the community will just have to accept that the RoF/BoS game engine, as good as it is, is just too limited to define the subtleties and characteristics between these aircraft as it stands and play it for what it's worth or move on because simple tweaks here and there, using existing FM construction methods, are just not going satisfy anybody.

#4075962 - 02/09/15 03:10 PM Re: Oh no ! Not another FM topic. [Re: Damocles]  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master Offline
Entil'zha
Jedi Master  Offline
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
It's the limits of hard data. Most of those numbers were not taken from in-service planes that have been around for months fighting.

This isn't limited to WWI. Pretty much every sim has to pick and choose where to get its data from. The old Il-2 suffered because Oleg used Russian sources. So the Luftwaffe planes were captured examples, maintained by Russians who weren't trained on them without proper spare parts, while the Russian planes used data that was more likely than not full of half-truths to make their planes seem better than they were so Stalin wouldn't execute them!

The problem is other than these biased testing sources or biased manufacturer/gov't sources, all you have is biased anecdotal evidence.



The Jedi Master


The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
#4075972 - 02/09/15 03:26 PM Re: Oh no ! Not another FM topic. [Re: Damocles]  
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,209
Chucky Offline
Veteran
Chucky  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,209
UK
Am I the only one who doesn't worry too much about FM's? I wouldn't even know if they were close or not.

I look at it this way. There must have been discrepancies between similar aircraft,even new from the factory. After months of front-line service this could be even greater.

As long as I'm enjoying what I think the FM's should be like and my aircraft doesn't behave like a UFO then I'm quite happy. I know this may not sit well with the hardcore crowd but I have better things to do than worry about whether or not one of my aircraft was a bit slow to reach 10,000 feet. YMMV X


“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
#4075979 - 02/09/15 03:32 PM Re: Oh no ! Not another FM topic. [Re: Damocles]  
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,475
Uriah Offline
Senior Member
Uriah  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,475
Kansas City, Missouri - USA
There is the problem in trying to compare one game/sim vs another in that between the BOS/CLOD/DCS we have I think no planes in common. I will leave War Thunder out of it. A2A has done some nice things but they are still dealing with a MS product that is now old unless there is something I don't know about.

That said. We do have some of those WW1 planes still flying. And even some reproduction of WWI aircraft. Is there no data from these planes? Do the game developers ever bother to consult the owners and pilots of these planes?


Race you to the Mucky Duck!
#4075981 - 02/09/15 03:33 PM Re: Oh no ! Not another FM topic. [Re: Chucky]  
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 683
dburne Offline
Member
dburne  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 683
Originally Posted By: Chucky
Am I the only one who doesn't worry too much about FM's? I wouldn't even know if they were close or not.



No you are not the only one, I am with you there.

The only thing that bothers me regarding fm, is the " rubber banding " feeling of some of the planes.
I would not know if that is realistic or not, but I would prefer they not be like that. Even the ROF planes do not exhibit that kind of behavior.


Don

EVGA X-79 Dark MB|I-7 4820K@4.50 GHz|EVGA 1080 Ti FTW3|16GB Corsair Dominator PC2133 Ram|Oculus Rift CV1|Virpil T-50 stick, Warthog throttle|MFG Crosswind Pedals
#4075992 - 02/09/15 03:47 PM Re: Oh no ! Not another FM topic. [Re: Damocles]  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master Offline
Entil'zha
Jedi Master  Offline
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
We've all read stories about how plane X fought against plane Y by doing hit-and-run attacks, since it was faster but less agile.
When you go into a sim and you find out that not only is plane X less agile but it's NOT faster (so basically the advantage is negated but the deficiency is still there), suddenly you're in the ahistorical realm of Y always beating X unless flown by an idiot because X is outclassed in every area.

That's how people get into FM arguments, because while in a vacuum you wouldn't know if X is flying too fast or too slow or not turning tight enough, when you fly against Y it becomes clear by comparison.

And that happened to me in the old Il-2 all the time, BTW. For one example, plane X as the F4F and plane Y as the A6M. When the Zero could fly just as fast as a Wildcat, and didn't suffer from compressibility or whatever locking up the controls at high speed, so it could still pull hard turns at max speed, you just quit flying the Wildcat.



The Jedi Master


The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
#4076021 - 02/09/15 05:19 PM Re: Oh no ! Not another FM topic. [Re: Jedi Master]  
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,241
Blade_Meister Offline
Member
Blade_Meister  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,241
Atlanta, GA, USA
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
We've all read stories about how plane X fought against plane Y by doing hit-and-run attacks, since it was faster but less agile.
When you go into a sim and you find out that not only is plane X less agile but it's NOT faster (so basically the advantage is negated but the deficiency is still there), suddenly you're in the ahistorical realm of Y always beating X unless flown by an idiot because X is outclassed in every area.

That's how people get into FM arguments, because while in a vacuum you wouldn't know if X is flying too fast or too slow or not turning tight enough, when you fly against Y it becomes clear by comparison.

And that happened to me in the old Il-2 all the time, BTW. For one example, plane X as the F4F and plane Y as the A6M. When the Zero could fly just as fast as a Wildcat, and didn't suffer from compressibility or whatever locking up the controls at high speed, so it could still pull hard turns at max speed, you just quit flying the Wildcat.



The Jedi Master


You know, that is funny because that is one plane(Wildcat) that I flew extensively in IL2 1946 and I pretty much fought the A6m exclusively in little Carrier Battle missions I made and the "Cactus" Campaign, and I enjoyed those battles immensely. While I never really knew that the A6m was suppose to have compressibility issues, diving I am assuming, the A6M did outclass the Wildcat in turning (radius?) and definitely in a climb. I merely found that if I stayed in a horizontal turn climb while watching the A6M vertical climb and anticipated where he was going next that I could catch him on the way down and cut him off in the Scissors maneuver. Anyway I had a blast in the Wildcat, especially quickly pushing the button to manually lower the gear. I thought that was so immersive, LMAO!

OT OP. My personnel opinion, for what it is worth, is that since a lot of us simmers have never flown in the planes we love and believe we know so much about, that we can only read the anecdotal evidence, the assumed factual data and then fathom in our own little minds what that is suppose to look like. I say look like, because we do not actually have any sensation of feeling while flying our simms, lest those with a Buttkicker! LOL
Testing climb rates, acceleration, turn radius & rates is all good, but can only be measures in controlled tests. Actual Air Combat is an ever evolving management of energy in several states, not, my plane performs better in testing and in anecdotal evidence so I win. I am not that great of a pilot, and I have been in Spitfires and my A$$ handed to me by a 109 in a turn fight and I have been in a 109 and had my A$$ handed to me by a Spitfire in an BNZ fight. Barring the glaring discrepancies in controlled test, planes x climbs 5000 FPM to fast, I have to forget about the FM and learn how to fight in the plane with what I have. Case in point: I am not a good BNZ fighter, but I love the DCS FW190 Dora, because I am lazy. The FW190 manages the Prop Pitch and Radiator so I can manage the RPM(throttle), and the MW150 with a push of a switch and drive the plane. Still the Mustang gives me fits. How can this be, I am in the better plane, better climb, better speed, less to control, just drive the plane. The difference is I am finally learning to manage the efficiencies of the FW190 and use the energy I collect and anticipate the weaknesses of the P51, and then capitalize on it and defeat him. The FW190 is not a super plane, it is the pilot and his efficient use of it that might make it a Super plane.

Said all that to say this. If I am having trouble beating any enemy that technically I should beat on paper, then I either test, both my plane and the enemy plane in controlled tests and compare to trusted factual data and if wrong try to get the devs to make changes, or you deal with it or you walk away. These sims will never actually simulate the RW counterparts, they are merely the best assimilation by an engineer in a 2d world. There is one last option, you learn to game the game and use whatever strengths the sim presents, realistic or not and practice until you master it. Even then you will come across another pilot who is better than you and puts the whole FM argument to rest when he whoops your A$$ in a Lag or a Tripe or a Mig29, even though you are in the qoute unquote" better plane" . That is when I shut the simulation down and go do something in RL and tell myself, in all actuality, it is a game. Sorry for the wall, but that is my 2 cents worth.

S!Blade<><

#4076039 - 02/09/15 05:36 PM Re: Oh no ! Not another FM topic. [Re: Damocles]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,187
Damocles Offline
Member
Damocles  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,187
Inverness Scotland
Which sim has an aircraft FM that has more exploitable quirks that set similar, contempory, aircarft apart ?

#4076083 - 02/09/15 06:45 PM Re: Oh no ! Not another FM topic. [Re: Damocles]  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master Offline
Entil'zha
Jedi Master  Offline
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
The P-38 had the diving issue affecting the elevator. The Zero had the problem with the ailerons due I believe to having inadequate leverage in the linkage, requiring excessive stick force to move, and while it would show up in diving, too, it wasn't limited to it.
I remember flying the Zero in both AOTP and 1942 PAW and having to deal with a severely reduced roll rate at high speeds...but not in Il-2 PF! Then the Zero was just faster in PF, or the Wildcat was slower, so that they both had similar top speeds. Again, I don't know absolute numbers especially as I can't conceptually grasp km/h speeds anyway in a fight, I need to do a conversion and that's not practical in combat. smile

Then there was the god awful .50s-have-the-punch-of-a-BB-gun problem which made the 4 guns so weak against the Zero's cannon... I really wanted to do more Pacific combat but PF just let me down overall. I stuck with the European side.




The Jedi Master


The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
#4076224 - 02/09/15 11:31 PM Re: Oh no ! Not another FM topic. [Re: Damocles]  
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 72
Sgigi Offline
Junior Member
Sgigi  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 72
What a ww2 sim really needs is some physical condition sliders. At one end its "like new" and you get those performance fugues from brand new polished test planes. At the other it old and haggard and performs below those figures.

One for the engine: power, critical alt, boost/temp limits before failure, and maybe oil/fuel consumption

One for airframe: g-limit, dive limit, gear strength

one for paint: drag caused by how polished it is, dents and dings, bugs and dirt

And maybe one for how tight the control cables are.

Didn't oleg talk about doing this with clod at some point?

Ps. I believe the diving issues in the 38 were caused by interactions between the engine booms and cockpit pod. Lockheed tried raising the elevator and it didn't improve dive recovery.

#4076474 - 02/10/15 01:50 PM Re: Oh no ! Not another FM topic. [Re: Damocles]  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master Offline
Entil'zha
Jedi Master  Offline
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
CloD had the weathering slider for pure visuals, but I think the rest of that was probably a "stretch goal" for late in the lifecycle because it certainly sounds like a LOT of work for just one plane, let alone a whole stable.



The Jedi Master


The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
#4076743 - 02/10/15 09:29 PM Re: Oh no ! Not another FM topic. [Re: Damocles]  
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,724
Sokol1 Offline
Senior Member
Sokol1  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,724
Internet
Quote:
CloD had the weathering slider for pure visuals, but I think the rest of that was probably a "stretch goal" for late in the lifecycle because it certainly sounds like a LOT of work for just one plane, let alone a whole stable.


In CloD desast.., ops release version had a slider "Physical Weathering" - besides the visual weathering - but as far I remember work like AI radio commands. smile


See on pag.47 of CloD manual: http://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/63950/manuals/IL2CoD_MANUAL_UK.pdf?t=1381854003

"NOTE: This setting is not for the faint of heart. Even the more hardcore players often find it infuriating, reset it to 0 and never touch it again. You can only take so many missions in which your engine seizes in the middle of a heated dogfight and you float down helplessly waiting to get shot out of the sky."

In ulterior patch's was "swept under the rug"...


Moderated by  CyBerkut 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

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


Recent Topics
Why Looney Tunes is great for history buffs
by PanzerMeyer. 10/20/19 11:05 PM
IJN Kaga found.
by NH2112. 10/19/19 10:32 PM
Grouch (Joker Parady)
by Arthonon. 10/19/19 02:19 PM
Nike vs B-17
by KraziKanuK. 10/18/19 08:30 PM
Grouch
by Chaz. 10/18/19 01:49 PM
How to pi$$ off Londoners...
by Chucky. 10/17/19 12:16 PM
Video game map size comparison
by DM. 10/17/19 09:45 AM
Happy Thanksgiving
by No105_Archie. 10/13/19 05:15 PM
Happy Birthday US Navy
by oldgrognard. 10/13/19 04:31 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0