my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Game Discussions (Title-specific)   » MS Combat Flight Simulator 2   » A question and a commentary on FMs

   
Author Topic: A question and a commentary on FMs
Apeboy
Member
Member # 2805

posted 10-18-2000 12:17 AM     Profile for Apeboy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Here we go again.

If we are going to go down this road...

Can we please be made aware of what resources are being used to *tweak* the FMs??? I can't believe MS just went out and souped up the C-150 for CFS2. They to have their own data and research AND there own interpetation. Everyone wants to throw out there favorite sim as a comparision. This is a new sim with it's own personality.

I've flown all the ww2 sims out there, I enjoy most of them. What sticks to me though is how one sim will be crowned the be all to end all in FMs, nothing is better...then they are overhauled in a new release and now THESE are the new pinnacle of FMs <insert any and all online sims>. Not one word was said prior to this, if it was it was summarily dismissed as hogwash...

Best I can tell these aircraft perform to historical standards. I'm not saying they do it better than any one else, it has it's differences and quirks. Every company has their own interpetation of how all the research should be carried over in sims. There are sacrifices for FM realism in EVERY sim out there.

I'm not trying to be a MS champion by any means. All I can say is I've flown a handfull of civilian planes that MS flight sim has released and more times than not they are right on the numbers or damn close to it. Give them the benifit of the doubt for the time being. Geez, I bet 90% haven't gotten our sys config'd yet.

Lets just chill...get used to the new sim, then see what happens....Geez, we haven't even gotten into discussing the DM yet.


Posts: 20 | From: | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Kraut
Member
Member # 513

posted 10-18-2000 12:42 AM     Profile for Kraut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Sorry Apeboy, I can't buy some of your observations. If ACME builds a Flight Sim Trainer for an F14, are their FMs going to be different than say, INCs? Each of these Co. don't produce a sim to their own ideas of how said plane should fly. They're made on the results of actual flight tests. These "sims" coincide with what's in the manuals of what one can or can't/shouldn't do with the F14 & how it would react to certain control surface inputs.
Hey, thanks for the input. I sure don't know that much abot anything really so I need all the information I can get.
FWIW,
Good Hunting!
PS. Oh frig, look @ the time!!!

Posts: 754 | From: Kitchener Ont. Can. | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Pasha
Member
Member # 3391

posted 10-18-2000 06:46 AM     Profile for Pasha   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Totally agreed Apeboy.

You can't tell them anything, most people won't listen..

I'm gonna stop trying now, and just enjoy flying.


Pasha

------------------
-If time machines were possible, they would have been prolific, since the begining of time.


Posts: 461 | From: | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Redneck
Member
Member # 2856

posted 10-18-2000 08:45 AM     Profile for Redneck   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
After reading threads about the FM yesterday,I went to bed thinkin of a way to more or less say the same thing apeboy said.

It's not only flight sims but any game that is called or concidered a sim has the same problem.

The feel of the unit is just not right.
Planes,cars, trucks,motorcycles,bricks or boards it makes no difference.

It seems to me if the physics and numbers are fed into the programs and these come from the same references,how can they all be wrong every time?

While in the Air Force,I begged rides in anything that had a buddy seat from 1960 to 70,I don't remember any of the pilots fighting to keep us in the air.

I've been on gun runs ,missle runs and playing just plain ole tag.

I just want to get one flight sim that has what eveyone can say is, yep that's just the way she flew.

Will this ever be possible?

.......Red.......


Posts: 99 | From: Missouri | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
letterboy1
Member
Member # 5126

posted 10-18-2000 09:09 AM     Profile for letterboy1   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hi Redneck,
I'm only going by what I've read, but so far I've seen several posts by F-16 pilots that claim Falcon 4 is pretty much on the money. I'm sure many points of contention over F4's FM are valid, but in the end you have to concede that in order to end up with a perfectly realistic FM you will end up building the darn plane itself. The sim in flightsim means "simulated." This is not meant as a slight to anyone since I too search for the holy grail of realism. As it stands, I have to rely on what the real pilots say and how the real programmers respond to it.

------------------
"You know what they call a Quarter Pounder in France? A Royale with Cheese."


Posts: 360 | From: Columbus, GA USA | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
Apeboy
Member
Member # 2805

posted 10-18-2000 09:09 AM     Profile for Apeboy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"Sorry Apeboy, I can't buy some of your observations. If ACME builds a Flight Sim Trainer for an F14, are their FMs going to be different than say, INCs?"

Kraut when these flight sims are based on aircraft that flew over 50 years ago and many, I say again many, different sources give conflicting performance data, not to mention pilot reports. The answer is....absolutey!

There are some real good sources out there for information for some planes, and it is very difficult to find info for others. Depending on the weather, pilot, fuel, arms, maintenence, whether or not half of the test crew was hung over etc. etc. two reliable sources can give significantly different numbers. There is a vast difference in being able to simulate a FM on something you can get stick time in over a long period of time to be able to factor in even the differences in two ac of the same type.

Just out of curiousity, which sim are you using as ACME and which for INC? I'm sure whatever it is we could sit around and pick that FM apart too.


Pasha, I think you have the right approach, I could take a lesson from your attitude. Of course with the exception of those damned yellow brackets!

Redneck, I doubt it. Seriously doubt it.


Posts: 20 | From: | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
JG51_GIJeff_<<+
Member
Member # 2099

posted 10-18-2000 09:28 AM     Profile for JG51_GIJeff_<<+   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Salute Gents,

Apeboy makes a valid point, but perhaps incomplete. You guys are overlooking the fact that while the data entered all comes from real planes in each flight sim, the game ENGINE differs. Each game is someone's idea of coding what real air, real ground, real bullets do to these aircraft. Hence the differing "feel" to each simulator. SDOE had it close imho, but CFSII comes much closer. I can SLIP in these planes.

I have flown real planes for a small time, and seen them flown for years by my Father, who competes in ultralight competitions with them. Only in CFSII do I see the capability to do the things with the aircraft that I have seen time and time again in real life. I have judged ultralight competitions flown by the best in the nation, and you wouldn't believe some of the things they can do. All these are possible in CFSII.

It may not be the most realistic possible, that goal is never achievable, however, hearing people that compare it to this sim or that sim lacks conviction to my mind. You flown a Corsair? THEN you can tell me that you don't think it is modeled right. REAL pilots in the REAL aircraft acted as advisors to M$ on this venture and I believe they got it close.

Everyone has READ something about how these aircraft perform, everyone THINKS they know how they should fly. Only those who have actually flown them hold any water with me. Some of the people bashing the sim have never flown a real plane, let alone a rare warbird. What makes you think you know how one flies if you have never flown a REAL plane?

To quote a saying my mother used to say. "You know the definition of expert? X is an unknown quantity, and SPURT is water under pressure."

p.s. this ain't a flame, just a wakeup call.

JG51_GIJeff_<<+


Posts: 99 | From: Pittsburgh, PA 15003 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Kraut
Member
Member # 513

posted 10-18-2000 09:31 AM     Profile for Kraut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well Apeboy, go to a military or civilian flight training centre, get on one of their sims for, say, an F16 or a 747 & then tell them about the flaws in their FMs. The ones they use to train pilots & also to keep them up to par on.
What would you say if one of these sims (F16) models the low speed stall @ 20 Knots. Then I think one could find fault in it. But when a pilot trains in one of these, I'm sure there's no big surprises when the real thing is flown in & with the same parimeters.
So, when I see a Hurrie outclimbing a 109e, or a 190 climbing straight up with no stall or high speed snap, I start to wonder. Or, an Ami craft with a small hit bubble & a Hun one with a larger one. Or a 303 ripping the Hades out of a 190 whilst 20 mms barely smoking a Spit.
Anyways, I'm outa here. I've had this same discussion 5 to 6 yrs. ago & not much has changed, except the FMs & WMs are getting better.
FWIW,
Good Hunting!

Posts: 754 | From: Kitchener Ont. Can. | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Apeboy
Member
Member # 2805

posted 10-18-2000 10:07 AM     Profile for Apeboy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"Well Apeboy, go to a military or civilian flight training centre, get on one of their sims for, say, an F16 or a 747 & then tell them about the flaws in their FMs. The ones they use to train pilots & also to keep them up to par on."

I'm not sure what you are saying, I'm not the one here bashing the FMs? However, as soon as I get my multi-million dollar simulator I will!!

I do agree with you on the Hurri/109/190/Spit thingie but I just don't think we are seeing those heinous crimes here in CFS2.

I also agree with you on it being an old debate. I sometimes wonder if it just a matter of course when a new sim arrives and some can't see the forest through the trees.

Cya


Posts: 20 | From: | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
MikeToth
Member
Member # 762

posted 10-18-2000 10:25 AM     Profile for MikeToth   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hey guys,

Has everyone forgotten that MS called on
the "real deal" pilots from that era to check this program out (Foss, Sakai etc etc)???

I mean come on, if ANYBODY would know how these crates flew it would be them!!!!>... Ok maybe the P-38 FM needs a tweak but these guys had these aircraft strapped to their bodies flying several times a day for years!!!........... I'm not saying that the program is perfect, but it seems that too many people are worried about the FM rather than just having some fun.... remember this
is a GAME............ not the real aircraft..

Give them the chance to fix some of the other bugs (Wingmen AI as an example) but
IMHO the FM should be left alone (except of course the P-38)

Mike


Posts: 219 | From: Cleveland, Ohio USA | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Redneck
Member
Member # 2856

posted 10-18-2000 10:48 AM     Profile for Redneck   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I would think the P-51 with all the documention available for it,there would be no question as to what would be right.

And the programers can't get it right???
Even Yeager said it was easier to fly than the AT-6 and the 6 was our trainer.

I believe your right,its got to be in the code or the minds of the armchair experts.

I'll buy the beer and drink to the day of the perfect FM. ;-)

PS: I think I read somewhere that those guys never flew the game.

[This message has been edited by Redneck (edited 10-18-2000).]


Posts: 99 | From: Missouri | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Hunedog
Member
Member # 94

posted 10-18-2000 11:20 AM     Profile for Hunedog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Here's some Tucker Hatfield Q&A's from the Gamespy Interview to chew on."

GameSpy: When it came to play testing the various iterations of the sim, were real pilots, in particular those familiar with the flight characteristics of the actual WWII aircraft, involved?

Background/Talking Points: How accurate, in other words, are the aerodynamic models delivered by the sim? Does the P-51 Mustang feel sluggish in "that" particular way after being damaged in "this" way, yet still being air-worthy? The feel of the sim is great in terms of the vintage element, and excluding the obvious digital bugs mentioned in question 2, it rocks.

Tucker Hatfield: We had a lot of input from the WWII pilots who advised us, but very few of them are computer enthusiasts, so they had very little "stick time." Nonetheless, we pestered them with questions and got a lot of good feedback.

As far as pilots flying the game, though, we had a ton. Many (as a guess, about half) of the members of our team and the other, shared teams, are pilots. For instance, the program manager for the Aircraft Team is a pilot, and the lead developer for the aircraft team is both a pilot and an aeronautical engineer. Our test team contains not only a lot of pilots, but also several hard-core sim fanatics.

The Aircraft team and test also worked together to build an automated testing tool that puts aircraft through their paces and produces performance graphs and curves that can be compared to actual performance data. This allowed us to tune the aircraft empirically to a much higher precision than we ever have before.
GameSpy: When it came to modeling the design and flight characteristics of the vintage aircraft within CFS2, how difficult was it to find the detailed information necessary to recreate the past?

Background/Talking Points: It's now 2000AD. All of the aircraft in CFS2 were designed and built circa 1938 to 1944. Where did the techno-details come from?

Tucker Hatfield: We got information from all sorts of places. Our Aircraft PM, Kevin Griffin, coordinated and compiled information from all of those sources and built a database that allowed the developers and testers to find info quickly.



Of course we bought tons of books, including the tried-and-true books like Jane's, as well as the various books aimed at fine scale modelers. We also got copies of the reproductions of the pilot's manuals, when they were available. We got data from various archives and from military reports from the era. For the George, we got some Japanese publications that aren't available in English, and had them translated.

We also have a partnership with the Confederate Air Force, which gives us an opportunity to get in contact with people who own restored warbirds. We took photos of the outside and inside of a lot of those planes and also recorded sounds from the actual aircraft. We also have a full time historian in the group that helped track down info.

Probably the biggest challenge was resolving the issues where sources didn't agree about specifications or other aircraft details. That involved more research to chase down the original source--just seeing what the majority of publications say may not yield the right answer. Sometimes they are all quoting from the same, erroneous, source. That's where having a lot of enthusiasts in the group helps the most. It yields a lot of inspirations for chasing down minutiae."
You can find the rest of the Interview here http://www.gamespy.com/interviews/october00/cfs2


Posts: 516 | From: Vancouver BC Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved