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   » FM Correct????!!!???

   
Author Topic: FM Correct????!!!???
tn_prvteye
Member
Member # 6330

posted 11-30-2000 08:57 AM     Profile for tn_prvteye   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Uh, according to Mr. Hatfield, the FMs are correct. On which planet? Mars? Sorry, sir, but the post-stall behavior IS WAY OFF. I can't beleive he had the nerve to proclaim that. I'm sure he's got a family to support, and that he's a good guy, but how can he honestly feel that way? Yeah, I know, just a game (blah blah blah), but it just seems he's being a good little MS soldier and spouting off the company line. Don't get me wrong, like the game (with other people's FMs)...but come on people, a little honesty every now and then would be nice...

(stumbles off soap-box)

-Steve


Posts: 91 | From: TN | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged
SpinDry
Member
Member # 7379

posted 11-30-2000 09:04 AM     Profile for SpinDry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I'm sure their flight testing, as is the norm, involved flying the crates through stages of the envelope and tweaking until the numbers came out "good enough" according the the charts. Simulating (properly) what happens after one leaves the envelope was, I'm sure, way down on the list of things that they didn't get to when "gotta go Gold" time came from On High.
Posts: 296 | From: Rome, NY, USA | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
tn_prvteye
Member
Member # 6330

posted 11-30-2000 09:22 AM     Profile for tn_prvteye   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yeah, I know, but it's still dissapointing to hear him claim the FM is correct and doesn't need a patch...anyone remember the old days when companies SUPPORTED their product? When Microprose released Pacific Air War, there were numerous complaints about the FM...and I mean REAL nit-picky type stuff...guess what? They fixed it. Used to be, when I bought a sim with problems, I felt pretty confident that they would be corrected with the next patch. Now? Hell, no...shove it out the door, make the bucks, and move on to the next bug-ridden product. Just kinda sad, that's all...
Posts: 91 | From: TN | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged
SpinDry
Member
Member # 7379

posted 11-30-2000 09:31 AM     Profile for SpinDry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
When Red Baron II hit the shelves, the outcry for a patch rocked the roof. Tucker and company listened, tried to work with us (the flight-simming public) and even to "involve" many in the process of fixing things. It was a long, costly and ultimately unsatisfying effort, and IMHO the only reason it got off the ground at all was the promise of getting their vision for MMP out the door without tying it to a major title release.

Well, Sierra/Dynamix ditched their whole flight sim division, shelved pending titles, and let the people go. Tucker was in charge during that whole episode. They never even really had a chance to give us what we ultimately wanted, because we were all perfectionists (and big-mouthed ones at that) and at some point the suits said "enough" and off went the faucet.

I really don't expect spectators at that mess (including M$) to be in a hurry to duplicate the effort, especially not Tucker who caught so much of the flak for it.

I'm peeved about CFS2. I loathe M$ as a corporation more than civility allows me to express. But I do understand some of the decisions and problems here. This is a genre considered "kid's games" and the flightsim perfectionist just doesn't factor in the equation for turning people's desire to play airplane games into money in the corporate accounts. Just stick wings, props and guns on some cool-looking shapes and get 'em flying and shooting each other, and you have a game. "Crimson Skies" is selling well, I hear.


Posts: 296 | From: Rome, NY, USA | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
tn_prvteye
Member
Member # 6330

posted 11-30-2000 09:39 AM     Profile for tn_prvteye   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
True, and okay, I can admit it...I love Crimson Skies, too...ironic, huh? Here I am complaining about FMs, and my fav right now has NO FM!! But, it's just a FUN flight-based action game, so I expected it...with CFS2, I wanted hardcore, so I'm a little more picky...BTW CS has even more problems with it than CFS2...no in-game flight issues, but it crashes every other game, has a memory leak, and generally causes havok on people's systems...but I still like it...
And I remember the RB2/RB3D mess...I didn't know (or had forgotten) Tucker was involved...

Actually right now, I just got the BOB demo...not as "pretty" as CFS2, but out-classes it everywhere else...IMHO


Posts: 91 | From: TN | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged
MagenDavid
Member
Member # 3784

posted 11-30-2000 09:09 PM     Profile for MagenDavid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
ok, lets say it juz a game. taking that perspective, all the more the FM should be worked out cos any simmer - casual or hardcore - would find some of the FMs weird.

i still can't believe the FM of the wildcat for example. No man could fly it effectively in a dogfight without spinning n stalling. He'd carsh half the time due to stalls before even getting shot.


Posts: 413 | From: | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
JG11Preusse
Member
Member # 338

posted 12-01-2000 05:19 AM     Profile for JG11Preusse   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
the fm of this sim is = lol
Posts: 116 | From: Hamburg, Germany | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
bolillo_loco
Member
Member # 7641

posted 12-04-2000 04:36 PM     Profile for bolillo_loco     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
it would be just nice to see some company get the flight models even close to what the planes really did. I have yet to see a flight sim do this, it seems each sim favors some specific plane, either it has performance well above what it could actually do or it is ok and the other planes are under modeled.

for them to say the flight models are close is either a case of not doing enough research or M$ just doesnt care. the P-38 comes to my mind. I have read too many tests to believe this plane turned like a tractor trailor. it could out turn most of americas fighter planes during ww2. if they didnt get the 38 right, what would lead us to believe the rest of the planes are correct?


Posts: 65 | From: Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Mexico | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
Nimits
Member
Member # 7442

posted 12-05-2000 11:13 AM     Profile for Nimits   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I have heard that the early model P-38 did not turn that well. It was the P-38J that was the ultimate Army WW2 fighter in the Pacific.
Posts: 127 | From: | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
bolillo_loco
Member
Member # 7641

posted 12-05-2000 12:57 PM     Profile for bolillo_loco     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
There was no change in the body, wings, elevators, rudder of the P-38 from the E-L models. the maneouvering flap was introduced in febuary of 1942 into the P-38F and remained unchanged thru the M series.

the f and h series were lighter than the J and L because the J and L carried 110 gallons more fuel. if either of the 38 series should have a turn advantage in terms of smaller turning circle it would have to be the F thru H models over the J and L models when using military power or less.

and Like I have said earlier. if they didnt get the P-38 right than the other planes are probably not correct. if the did get the 38 correct, than you can guess they did alot of research on the planes and tried to model them correctly.

under military power or less the F and H models had higher rates of climb than did both the J and L since the F had 1,325 hp military and the H had 1,425hp military and weighted almost 1,000 lbs less than did a J and L which had 1,425 hp milary for the J and 1,475 military for the L.

I do not have enough data on the last half of the L production which claims the L had 1,725 hp wep. it probably had more military power than 1,475 hp of the earlier L. this series of 38 is claimed to have top speed of 425 military and 440 wep power. in comparison to the 425 mph top speed of both the J and early L.

the main advantage the J and early L models should have over both the F and H would come in the form of wep power and wep power at altitude. both the J and L had much more power on tap. J and L's had 3,200 hp wep up to 29,000 ft. the F and H series had 2,200-2,500 hp available at altitudes between 10,000-30,000 due to the fact that their turbo inner coolers could not cool the air as well as the J and L which had much improved inner coolers.

the advantages of the J and L series would also come in the form of dive recovery flaps which greatly increased the 38s dive performance and power boosted ailerons which also greatly improved the 38s rate of roll at IAS airspeed in excess of 300 mph. below that the rate of roll would be the same.

when using full power this may inable the J and L to keep up with an early E-G series in turns even though the F and H are lighter. I have read that since the thrust of the props blew over a large portion of the wings it gave the 38 the ability to turn quite nicely. also the engines are said to have enough thrust to pull the plane thru tight maneouvers. but the H model had the same amount of wep power below 10,000 ft as did the later models 38.

speed bleed during medium to high speed turns may again favor the J and L series since they had more power on tap. but again it seems to be six of one or half a dozen of another. the F model should have some slight advantage in terms of turning on a horizontal plane and the J should have the advantage in terms of vertical maneouvers, higher dive speeds, and higher rates of roll at speeds in excess of 300 mph IAS at any altitude.

might I suggest three books to clear up any rumors which still follow the 38 to this day. these three books will give you a good idea of exactly what the 38 could do and what problems it encountered and how they were solved.

americas hundred thousand by francis h. dean

the fork tailed devel by martin caidin

the P-38 lightning by warren bodie

these three books give performance from sea level to service ceiling for speed, rate of climb, roll ability, and flight characteristics under different power settings and speed ranges. they cover alot of information unlike most books which tend to only give opinions, biased information, rumors, or just the tip of the iceberg like 95% of the books I have read.


Posts: 65 | From: Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Mexico | Registered: Oct 2000  |  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