PDA

View Full Version : FM and real flight


jf1981
04-24-2011, 12:06 PM
Hi,

I'm wondering about if the dev team could implement a FM closer from reality in terms of behaviour and all the small instabilities that occur particularly when flying low as the groud disturbs the laminar flow of wind when you get closer from the ground.

Particularly, I find CoD Supermarine Spitfire being a little bit heavy and too much stable in my opinion at about 90 to 110 mph approach and touch, more heavy than it seems to be in some videos of the real one making approachs.

I wonder how much complex and realistic is the FM engine, and about the wind turbulences al low altitude, but I have the feeling that it could be even closer from reality.

Jean-François

Sternjaeger II
04-24-2011, 12:26 PM
Hi,

I'm wondering about if the dev team could implement a FM closer from reality in terms of behaviour and all the small instabilities that occur particularly when flying low as the groud disturbs the laminar flow of wind when you get closer from the ground.

Particularly, I find CoD Supermarine Spitfire being a little bit heavy and too much stable in my opinion at about 90 to 110 mph approach and touch, more heavy than it seems to be in some videos of the real one making approachs.

I wonder how much complex and realistic is the FM engine, and about the wind turbulences al low altitude, but I have the feeling that it could be even closer from reality.

Jean-François

I take it that you posted this helpful comment based on your experience flying real Spitfires, or your perception of "reality" is another Hollywood/home video/videogame based one? :rolleyes:

seaeye
04-24-2011, 12:37 PM
I take it that you posted this helpful comment based on your experience flying real Spitfires, or your perception of "reality" is another Hollywood/home video/videogame based one? :rolleyes:

Not a valid response, just looking to get backs up I imagine. What's with the sarcasm??? Arse.

jf1981, I wonder if the feature you talk about are among those that are to be 'unocked' in the coming years as hardware is able to deal with the added. As for the Spitfire's FM, I have no basis to comment really other than it does feel remarkably stable when firing compared to a Hurricane but this could be accurate for all I know.

bando
04-24-2011, 01:00 PM
I take it that you posted this helpful comment based on your experience flying real Spitfires, or your perception of "reality" is another Hollywood/home video/videogame based one? :rolleyes:

What an unbelievable rude response.

Question is valid as I feel the same ( feel, not know, as I never flew a spitfire). Hope the FM gets a bit maintenance in flying high and shaking as well.

jf1981
04-24-2011, 01:25 PM
I take it that you posted this helpful comment based on your experience flying real Spitfires, or your perception of "reality" is another Hollywood/home video/videogame based one? :rolleyes:

Unfortunately not, certainly never will. No, it's based on the fact that on every Spi or 109 video you see on youtube, you could note they really seem light and flying like birds, I mean rolling left and right and taken up by the wind like a light bird.

Now I can't tell how close or far the sim is from that, but the feeling is'nt quite here yet, to me.

Of course at this stage, it all needs to be polished, there is no doubt every part of the game will have improvements. That one would be welcome (if of course it is indeed needed).

BTW you will just find out many videos of real spit in modern age filmed as they were restored and flown through shows, which are amazing ones.

Sternjaeger II
04-24-2011, 01:34 PM
Not a valid response, just looking to get backs up I imagine. What's with the sarcasm??? Arse.

jf1981, I wonder if the feature you talk about are among those that are to be 'unocked' in the coming years as hardware is able to deal with the added. As for the Spitfire's FM, I have no basis to comment really other than it does feel remarkably stable when firing compared to a Hurricane but this could be accurate for all I know.

because u just joined and didn't even make an effort to look at topics that already been discussed.. who's the arse now?!

When will people stop joining forums and go on about alleged problems of things they don't have an understanding of and:

1) don't make an effort and see if the thing is being discussed already

2) motivate their assertion with factual data/evidence?

your posts are a waste of space, get over it.

Sternjaeger II
04-24-2011, 01:37 PM
Unfortunately not, certainly never will. No, it's based on the fact that on every Spi or 109 video you see on youtube, you could note they really seem light and flying like birds, I mean rolling left and right and taken up by the wind like a light bird.

Now I can't tell how close or far the sim is from that, but the feeling is'nt quite here yet, to me.

Of course at this stage, it all needs to be polished, there is no doubt every part of the game will have improvements. That one would be welcome (if of course it is indeed needed).

BTW you will just find out many videos of real spit in modern age filmed as they were restored and flown through shows, which are amazing ones.

I am lucky enough to fly with warbirds and vintage planes, and I can tell you that it's all down to how you act on your aeroplane controls. Another important thing to take into account is your joystick setup, have a bit of playing with it and see if you still get that "heavy" feeling.

jf1981
04-24-2011, 01:37 PM
because u just joined and didn't even make an effort to [...]

Please get moderated. Please don't take it personnaly.

jf1981
04-24-2011, 01:40 PM
I am lucky enough to fly [...]

Hi,

Thanks. I'm gonna start lessons later in that year and we'll see.

Thanks for your advice.

Sternjaeger II
04-24-2011, 01:44 PM
Please get moderated. Please don't take it personnaly.

I wasn't referring to you in particular, there's a lot of people here which make silly assumptions. You motivated your concerns better and I suggested you a possible solution, my reaction is annoyed and a bit rude maybe because it keeps on happening on this forum.

Good luck with the flying lessons, it will open a new world and answer a lot of questions.

seaeye
04-24-2011, 03:55 PM
because u just joined and didn't even make an effort to look at topics that already been discussed.. who's the arse now?!

Oh yes, I forgot I only just joined the forum so I guess I should be humbled by your superior post count. Yes, forget about what experience or knowledge I have and conduct your interactions with me based on when I joined a software publishing forum. I can only offer my most sincere apologies to the great Sternjaeger II.

Chips86
04-24-2011, 04:21 PM
because u just joined and didn't even make an effort to look at topics that already been discussed.. who's the arse now?!

When will people stop joining forums and go on about alleged problems of things they don't have an understanding of and:

1) don't make an effort and see if the thing is being discussed already

2) motivate their assertion with factual data/evidence?

your posts are a waste of space, get over it.


And you being her AN HOLE MONTHS is justification for you to be an arsehole. If you were living in my house I'd put you in a dress and make you do my chores, because you sir, are a silly little bitch.

Sternjaeger II
04-24-2011, 04:25 PM
And you being her AN HOLE MONTHS is justification for you to be an arsehole. If you were living in my house I'd put you in a dress and make you do my chores, because you sir, are a silly little bitch.

If you actually followed the forum you would probably see that I've been here way longer than that, but once again it's people like you that give strength to "it takes one to know one" :rolleyes:

uh and well done for showing us what sort of illiterate (" here a whole month" not "her an hole months", I'm a foreigner and speak a better English than you!) misogynist macho man you are..

Blackdog_kt
04-24-2011, 04:26 PM
Sternjaeger, i understand the repetition gets you annoyed, it annoys me too. On the other hand, if we go about "shouting" at the new-comers for not knowing how the place works they just get a sour taste and no positive experience from their first exchanges in the forum, which leads to a continuation of this trend.

If on the other hand we just tell them "the short answer is X, but please use the forum search as this has been talked about before" they are more likely to do something similar when another new poster appears with the same question, thus reducing the overall levels of repetition and taking over the burden of "teaching" the forum's netiquette from us ;)

No offense meant, after all a lot of times i agree with what you say and you also have useful stuff to share due to your real-life experience with warbirds. I'm just saying that if we "hold their hand" through for a couple of posts they will probably get the meaning of how this place work even easier. Cheers :grin:

Sternjaeger II
04-24-2011, 04:40 PM
Blackdog, my friend, thank you, and trust me, I agree with you, I believe in the "let's take em around hand in hand and show em how it works here", and I know I'm a bit caustic and short fused, but it's all in the presentation sometimes. And yes, many things can get lost in translation, but I eventually gave what I reckon was a constructive suggestion to our new friend, which I hope he will try and will prove useful, whilst receiving a hailstorm of insults by newbies who weren't even part of the conversation..

I'm trying hard to be a better person, but sometimes it feels like starting a diet in a cake shop.. ;)

Sternjaeger II
04-24-2011, 04:44 PM
Oh yes, I forgot I only just joined the forum so I guess I should be humbled by your superior post count. Yes, forget about what experience or knowledge I have and conduct your interactions with me based on when I joined a software publishing forum. I can only offer my most sincere apologies to the great Sternjaeger II.

no, it's not about post counts, it's about experience as you said, and reading forum rules, or more simply common sense. As for comparing knowledge and experience on the subject you picked the wrong fella, trust me...

If you entered in a pub and said to the landlord "Hey, that's not the way to draft Guinness, I've never done it myself but I'm sure it isn't, cos I've seen it in a movie or something" what do you expect the reaction to be?

Kakashi
04-24-2011, 04:50 PM
Hi,

I'm wondering about if the dev team could implement a FM closer from reality in terms of behaviour and all the small instabilities that occur particularly when flying low as the groud disturbs the laminar flow of wind when you get closer from the ground.

Particularly, I find CoD Supermarine Spitfire being a little bit heavy and too much stable in my opinion at about 90 to 110 mph approach and touch, more heavy than it seems to be in some videos of the real one making approachs.

I wonder how much complex and realistic is the FM engine, and about the wind turbulences al low altitude, but I have the feeling that it could be even closer from reality.

Jean-François

Sternjaeger II told you to be better with the controls (joystick have a better feel etc..) and I would agree with that as well. The pilots in airshows are pretty descent I would think! So I don't know about your flight experience (your knowledge seems there though) but it could most likely need some time to get to that airshow level.

Furthermore. The planes in airshows (I m sure) are not loaded with weapons, and probably not with full fuel tanks either to allow for better maneuvering. So the planes in airshows might actually be a lot lighter than it feels in the game because of all this missing wait to meet airshow standards.

I know you can definately feel the difference in Il-2 1946 when you fly an airplane with 100% fuel + ammos, or 25% fuel and no ammo! I don't see why that wouldn't be the case in CloD.

Cheers and have fun on this forum + simulator.

Kakashi
04-24-2011, 04:53 PM
no, it's not about post counts, it's about experience as you said, and reading forum rules, or more simply common sense. As for comparing knowledge and experience on the subject you picked the wrong fella, trust me...

If you entered in a pub and said to the landlord "Hey, that's not the way to draft Guinness, I've never done it myself but I'm sure it isn't, cos I've seen it in a movie or something" what do you expect the reaction to be?

Irrelevant, he was talking about actual real footage about real spitfires in contrast with hollywood footage with spits (like pearl harbor let's say). You really don't have to be so rude to someone you don't know like that.

You know, we are on a forum, and believe it or not... There are REAL people, not pixels programs or computers posting... Show some respect like Blackdog_kt advised you. Hate will not get you anywhere.

CharveL
04-24-2011, 05:02 PM
The problem with this game is the damage modeling.

I should be able to shoot down at least 4 or 5 planes with the ammo load (which ends way too early for reality) in one sortie. And how come the planes I shoot don't blow up in a big fireball every time?

When watching historical films like Top Gun and Pearl Harbour I get the feeling CoD just isn't able to get things right.

Luthier, please feel free to contact me directly about my feelings and impressions as they will be invaluable to you since I've watched tons of videos and movies and think they are right!

(just teasing. Grow a thick skin, welcome, and carry on...)

;)

Sternjaeger II
04-24-2011, 05:07 PM
The problem with this game is the damage modeling.

I should be able to shoot down at least 4 or 5 planes with the ammo load (which ends way too early for reality) in one sortie. And how come the planes I shoot don't blow up in a big fireball every time?

When watching historical films like Top Gun and Pearl Harbour I get the feeling CoD just isn't able to get things right.

Luthier, please feel free to contact me directly about my feelings and impressions as they will be invaluable to you since I've watched tons of videos and movies and think they are right!

(just teasing. Grow a thick skin, welcome, and carry on...)

;)

LOL exactly! :mrgreen:

Sternjaeger II
04-24-2011, 05:10 PM
Irrelevant, he was talking about actual real footage about real spitfires in contrast with hollywood footage with spits (like pearl harbor let's say). You really don't have to be so rude to someone you don't know like that.

You know, we are on a forum, and believe it or not... There are REAL people, not pixels programs or computers posting... Show some respect like Blackdog_kt advised you. Hate will not get you anywhere.

Respect? If you had to read the same stuff day and day out for YEARS I would like to see how your respect would deal with it.. That's the way I am, if you can read between the lines and not get your ego in the middle, you can actually outsource some useful hints, if you just think I'm offending you then it's just your problem...

Respect for human race is SO overrated..

Kakashi
04-24-2011, 05:16 PM
Respect? If you had to read the same stuff day and day out for YEARS I would like to see how your respect would deal with it.. That's the way I am, if you can read between the lines and not get your ego in the middle, you can actually outsource some useful hints, if you just think I'm offending you then it's just your problem...

Respect for human race is SO overrated..

lol still, hate won't get you anywhere... I may be new to this forum, but I've been around on other forums... Just an advice. I'm not offended, I'm just saying this out loud is all.

Sternjaeger II
04-24-2011, 05:20 PM
lol still, hate won't get you anywhere... I may be new to this forum, but I've been around on other forums... Just an advice. I'm not offended, I'm just saying this out loud is all.

lol fair enough mate, you see I can be such a charming person! ;)

jf1981
04-24-2011, 05:37 PM
I don't mean to be rude but it's really annoying, please stop the "chit chat".

CharveL
04-24-2011, 06:00 PM
I don't mean to be rude but it's really annoying, please stop the "chit chat".

Please don't tell people what to do within the confines of forum rules. The "back" arrow at the top of your browser is a much more amenable solution to your annoyance.

Thanks! ;)

jf1981
04-24-2011, 06:03 PM
For sake of clear topic of Q & A keep on the track of that topic.

RocketDog
04-24-2011, 06:11 PM
I am lucky enough to fly with warbirds and vintage planes, and I can tell you that it's all down to how you act on your aeroplane controls. Another important thing to take into account is your joystick setup, have a bit of playing with it and see if you still get that "heavy" feeling.

That's really interesting. Which warbirds have you flown? I guess if you're in the US you mostly fly P-40s and P-51s. I'm really envious.

TheGrunch
04-24-2011, 06:16 PM
Sternjaeger, others have been here far longer and heard the 'impressionist' approach to issues with the game far more times than you, myself included, but there is still no need to be an utter ****** 100% of the time. It's no wonder you're on your second account already (although I confess I don't know what happened to cause it, likely something to do with the atrocities thread).
Just stick to stating the facts as you know them, it's much less hassle for you and for everybody else.

Sternjaeger II
04-24-2011, 07:09 PM
Sternjaeger, others have been here far longer and heard the 'impressionist' approach to issues with the game far more times than you, myself included, but there is still no need to be an utter ****** 100% of the time. It's no wonder you're on your second account already (although I confess I don't know what happened to cause it, likely something to do with the atrocities thread).
Just stick to stating the facts as you know them, it's much less hassle for you and for everybody else.

that's a totally uncalled for message Grunch, if you really want to know feel free to PM me..

Kakashi
04-24-2011, 07:28 PM
For sake of clear topic of Q & A keep on the track of that topic.

Like I said before:
Furthermore. The planes in airshows (I m sure) are not loaded with weapons, and probably not with full fuel tanks either to allow for better maneuvering. So the planes in airshows might actually be a lot lighter than it feels in the game because of all this missing wait to meet airshow standards.

I know you can definately feel the difference in Il-2 1946 when you fly an airplane with 100% fuel + ammos, or 25% fuel and no ammo! I don't see why that wouldn't be the case in CloD.

Cheers and have fun on this forum + simulator.

Just a little something to consider :)

BP_Tailspin
04-26-2011, 05:54 AM
Hi,

I'm wondering about if the dev team could implement a FM closer from reality in terms of behaviour and all the small instabilities that occur particularly when flying low as the groud disturbs the laminar flow of wind when you get closer from the ground.

Particularly, I find CoD Supermarine Spitfire being a little bit heavy and too much stable in my opinion at about 90 to 110 mph approach and touch, more heavy than it seems to be in some videos of the real one making approachs.

I wonder how much complex and realistic is the FM engine, and about the wind turbulences al low altitude, but I have the feeling that it could be even closer from reality.

Jean-François

Great post Jean, your light years ahead of most of these boneheads.

But careful what you wish for, LOL

There’s a few differences between the “real world” and a “game world” In the real world the pilot can Feel what the airplane is doing, in the game world we can’t feel the aircraft so we can’t anticipate what the aircraft is doing, we can only see what the airplane has already done. In the real world the pilot has Depth Perception (a 3D world around them). In the gaming world we see every thing in a 2D world through our monitor with no Depth Perception or your use of your Peripheral Vision.

A pilot needs to feel and see the world around them in order to react to the conditions you are describing. Without having a seat-of -the-pants feel for the aircraft, depth perception or peripheral vision combined with trying to fly looking though a little port hole (your monitor) it’s a wonder we can fly at all.

jf1981
04-26-2011, 07:13 AM
[...]

Hello Tailspin,

Yes, I this was also on my mind, I do agree with you. Rendering closer than this is virtuose's job.

I was not dreaming about asking for 3D, but now that you write about it, this is true that the idea is good, nowadays it makes it way apparently.

Regards,

J-F

TheGrunch
04-26-2011, 07:32 AM
that's a totally uncalled for message Grunch, if you really want to know feel free to PM me..
I don't really care, it still doesn't excuse your unfailingly antagonistic attitude... :confused: Just calm down a bit, 's only a forum.

Sternjaeger II
04-26-2011, 09:45 AM
I don't really care, it still doesn't excuse your unfailingly antagonistic attitude... :confused: Just calm down a bit, 's only a forum.

I'm perfectly calm, it's a fact, just like the fact that you are an agitator..
If you want to dispensate hints on forum behaviour, you might as well give the good example and use tact, but hey, I suppose this doesn't match with your provocative attitude.. at least I don't make a mystery of mine.. :rolleyes:

Sternjaeger II
04-26-2011, 09:54 AM
Great post Jean, your light years ahead of most of these boneheads.

But careful what you wish for, LOL

There’s a few differences between the “real world” and a “game world” In the real world the pilot can Feel what the airplane is doing, in the game world we can’t feel the aircraft so we can’t anticipate what the aircraft is doing, we can only see what the airplane has already done. In the real world the pilot has Depth Perception (a 3D world around them). In the gaming world we see every thing in a 2D world through our monitor with no Depth Perception or your use of your Peripheral Vision.

A pilot needs to feel and see the world around them in order to react to the conditions you are describing. Without having a seat-of -the-pants feel for the aircraft, depth perception or peripheral vision combined with trying to fly looking though a little port hole (your monitor) it’s a wonder we can fly at all.

I'm sorry but what does it have to do with the random remark made by J-F?

jf1981
04-26-2011, 11:52 AM
I'm sorry but what does it have to do with the random remark made by J-F?

Hi,

I think he means that going into that direction is pretty difficult dev's job actually, and this is quite true.

Sternjaeger II
04-26-2011, 12:08 PM
Hi,

I think he means that going into that direction is pretty difficult dev's job actually, and this is quite true.

it's not difficult, it's impossible. Fatigue is something you can't simulate, and that's the biggest difference from real life, but you still have force feedback that can give you a fairly decent representation of the aeroplane behaviour.. ok, surely not complete, but better than feeling no forces at all!

BP_Tailspin
04-26-2011, 12:50 PM
I'm sorry but what does it have to do with the random remark made by J-F?

random remark?

Sternjaeger II
04-26-2011, 01:29 PM
random remark?

..that was the whole point: J-F's opinion was based on his impression, not facts, and something as simple as adjusting your control sensitivity can do the trick..

to me, a statement that is not supported by facts is random like any other statement..

so if you say "I think the behaviour in this specific aspect is wrong because I have this RAF report/pilot note/physics formula to support my theory then we can discuss it, but if you say because it doesn't seem realistic to me/because in the movies they're different/because Elvis told me so then you can appreciate that it's yet another waste of forum space.

Buzpilot
04-26-2011, 03:40 PM
..that was the whole point: J-F's opinion was based on his impression, not facts, and something as simple as adjusting your control sensitivity can do the trick..

to me, a statement that is not supported by facts is random like any other statement..

so if you say "I think the behaviour in this specific aspect is wrong because I have this RAF report/pilot note/physics formula to support my theory then we can discuss it, but if you say because it doesn't seem realistic to me/because in the movies they're different/because Elvis told me so then you can appreciate that it's yet another waste of forum space.

So, with your experience with warbirds and vintage planes, you would say the Spit approach at ~100 is quit real, or maybe even worse than in reality?

Sternjaeger II
04-26-2011, 04:10 PM
So, with your experience with warbirds and vintage planes, you would say the Spit approach at ~100 is quit real, or maybe even worse than in reality?

if we're talking about mph I can tell you it's a bit on the fast side, but mind you, AFAIK on a fully loaded Spit the speed should be just under 90mph, so it's not much of a difference there.

Buzpilot
04-26-2011, 04:18 PM
if we're talking about mph I can tell you it's a bit on the fast side, but mind you, AFAIK on a fully loaded Spit the speed should be just under 90mph, so it's not much of a difference there.

I find CoD Supermarine Spitfire being a little bit heavy and too much stable in my opinion at about 90 to 110 mph approach and touch, more heavy than it seems to be in some videos of the real one

Was just trying to see what happen if i asked directly, and not as a 'comment', like you put it.

Sternjaeger II
04-26-2011, 04:33 PM
Was just trying to see what happen if i asked directly, and not as a 'comment', like you put it.

well I never flown with a Spitfire Mk.I or II unfortunately. I could try and ask in the circuit and see what the RAF folks say, but I doubt the answer will be much different.

a quick browse of the interweb came with this:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit2.html
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171.html

which confirms my fallacious memory..

jf1981
04-26-2011, 05:14 PM
..that was the whole point: J-F's opinion was based on his impression, not facts, and something as simple as adjusting your control sensitivity can do the trick..

to me, a statement that is not supported by facts is random like any other statement..

I do not agree, no, I would rather say that "a statement that is not supported by facts is arbitrary".
No, to be serious, I base that on X-Plane in fact, which simulates any kind of turbulences and does show the flight model if you request it to do so through multiple vectors.
I'm thinking about posting a video to show that, but I'm not sure it would be useful, I think there is a development work far mor on bug side at the moment.

The other point, I do not have a very good frame rate. It might be that planes behave differently on machines with very good frame rate.


so if you say "I think the behaviour in this specific aspect is wrong because I have this RAF report/pilot note/physics formula to support my theory then we can discuss it, but if you say because it doesn't seem realistic to me/because in the movies they're different/because Elvis told me so then you can appreciate that it's yet another waste of forum space.

Ok, so as you do not know exactly based on which facts I write that statement, you are in the same arbitrary. No, really I need to be serious :

Honestly, I think and I'm pretty sure the few months ahead will show developement on all parts including the FM, so if there is still a lack in that domain we could certainly dig deeper.

I have to admit that I did'nt want to do that initially, but here you are with some samples just to show another flight model :
Cesna 172 in wind turbulences, from X-Plane (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD0MJhDDnN8&feature=related)

To summurize, I gave you - it's true - my feelings, but there's not big deal. It's gonna be worked through if it is indeed needed in the next months. I'm pretty sure this sim will grow well. Certainly matter of time.

Bye,
JF

Sternjaeger II
04-26-2011, 05:23 PM
I doubt that CoD will ever be as open source as X-Plane, but I wish I was proven wrong at some point!

I have to admit I haven't paid much attention to X-Plane, it doesn't deliver quite the punch that I was hoping for..

Turbulence seems good though, but we had that in IL-2 as well!

BP_Tailspin
04-27-2011, 05:57 AM
..that was the whole point: J-F's opinion was based on his impression, not facts, and something as simple as adjusting your control sensitivity can do the trick..

to me, a statement that is not supported by facts is random like any other statement..

so if you say "I think the behaviour in this specific aspect is wrong because I have this RAF report/pilot note/physics formula to support my theory then we can discuss it, but if you say because it doesn't seem realistic to me/because in the movies they're different/because Elvis told me so then you can appreciate that it's yet another waste of forum space.

The programmers read books, pilot reports, pilot notes, and whatever they can to research WW2 aircraft performance data; I hope you didn't think all the programmers were WW2 Pilots and Mechanics!

They do lots of mathematical calculations to determine the flight and damage models that they feel will represent the aircraft. But in the end they take an educated guess which is just fine, it’s the only choose they have.

We offer our "opinion's" after buying the game and then they adjust the FM and DM from time to time. They would never need to adjust the FM and DM if they only used "the facts" but as we all know patch after patch mod after mod they do adjust the FM and DM and everything else.

Its all good ... have some faith in Oleg and his team.