Flight Modeling vs. Flight Handling.

[ElAurens]

I'm not intending to open a can of worms with this, but we are having an interesting discussion of this on our forum, and wondered what all of you think about it.

We were discussing RoF actually, with one of the guys that has time in about a dozen or so different bi-planes, including a full scale replica SE5a and a three quarter scale Nieuport 17.

The question was do the planes in the simulation behave or "feel" like the real thing, or are they just generic?

This was his response as a real pilot and sim flyer...

The problem is the missuse of the term “Flight Model” in a game/sim, its nothing more than raw data gathered from books and is fairly accurately represented in IL2, COD and ROF as they are only programming raw data and not flight handling data from pilot interviews (silly Russians).

Aircraft “Flight Handling” is a whole new subject; this is really what we are talking about when we ask questions about the “Flight Model“. I haven’t been flying ROF as of lately, life has been interfering in my gaming activities.

How does “Flight Handling” compare from aircraft to aircraft in Rise of Flight you ask! Let me work on that question.

To put it in a context that I can relate to being someone involved in motorsport of the 4 wheeled variety...

You can have two cars with identical performance numbers across the board, top speed, braking, acceleration, lateral Gs, etc... Yet one will have to be bullied into doing it and the other will behave as if connected directly to your brain.

His assertion is that (or seems to me to be that) just knowing the numbers and having the virtual aircraft meet them is not enough, you need the actual pilot's input on how the aircraft behaves in your hands, how it feels, how easy or hard it is to fly and operate.

This is what, to me, is missing in most simulations that I have experience with.

Discuss.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

His assertion is that (or seems to me to be that) just knowing the numbers and having the virtual aircraft meet them is not enough, you need the actual pilot's input on how the aircraft behaves in your hands, how it feels, how easy or hard it is to fly and operate.

The 6DOF 'Flight Models' can be very accurate wrt performance values..

Note I said can be..

But to capture the 'quarks' and or 'personality' and or 'characteristics' of a plane.. What you call 'Flight Handling' can be very subjective sometimes..

Because the 'Flight Handling' can be affected by so many variables, one key one being the INPUTS from the pilot. Read different pilot different characteristics

The first PC game I remember making an attempt at simulating the 'Handling' was EAW..

Where the P51 flight manual stated to recover from a stall, you had to put the ailerons into the spin and the rudder opposite of the spin..

There are other types of characteristics.. For example take the Fw190 and P39's tendency to flip over onto its back in an accelerated stall.. Where some 190s pilots actually started to use it as an evation manuver.. Another example would be how some planes will buffet or give the pilot some sort of clue before it stalls.. Like a vibration in the seat or stick.. Where as other planes gave no warning what so ever.. Or take the classic 109 slats that sometimes opened up un-evenly can caused the plane to jerk around.. The list is endless!

So a lot of those kind of things could be added to the 6DOF flight model.. But they would be a 'wrapper' (think mission trigger like) to the 6DOF not really part of it..

Maybe in the near future when the average PC is capable of running a Fluid Dynamics version of a 'Flight Model' than and maybe only than will you get both 'Flight Modeling' and 'Flight Handling' characteristics

Originally Posted by ElAurens

This is what, to me, is missing in most simulations that I have experience with.

The good news is most of these characteristics have no affect on the performance.. So even though you may be able to recover from a stall in a P51 without following the procedure in the P51 flight manual does not mean the you can not still have a very realistic experience and apply realistic tactics..

To put it another way, most of those 'characteristics' go unnoticed because most of the time your not at that point in the envelope

[BP_Tailspin]

Interesting topic.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by BP_Tailspin

Interesting topic.

[Upthair]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

...

You can have two cars with identical performance numbers across the board, top speed, braking, acceleration, lateral Gs, etc... Yet one will have to be bullied into doing it and the other will behave as if connected directly to your brain.

His assertion is that (or seems to me to be that) just knowing the numbers and having the virtual aircraft meet them is not enough, you need the actual pilot's input on how the aircraft behaves in your hands, how it feels, how easy or hard it is to fly and operate.

This is what, to me, is missing in most simulations that I have experience with.

Discuss.

The way I understand it:



There are different paths - an infinite number of them, actually - that connect two or more fixed points (in the graph, points A and B). These fixed points are the performance numbers; those different paths, the distinct handling experiences, or distinct 'feels'.

It would be fortunate if for a certain WWII aircraft modelled the correct 'path' can be picked out by a real-life pilot of it, but in most cases the 100% genuine aircraft does not exist now.

--

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Upthair

It would be fortunate if for a certain WWII aircraft modelled the correct 'path' can be picked out by a real-life pilot of it, but in most cases the 100% genuine aircraft does not exist now.

This would require the same input hardware too.
See? It's not going to happen.

[namroob]

It's not just handling either. When flying a real aeroplane your senses are assaulted by noise, constantly changing g-forces, constantly changing visual stimuli over your whole visual field (as opposed to a screen in front of you), and so on. It's a far more intense experience compared with flying a PC sim, especially aerobatics. Even the weight of a helmet takes some getting used to. And the controls of anything from a light twin up can be physically far heavier than PC controls, requiring a bit of muscle to move.

[TomcatViP]

Of course. But let's play it simple

[JG52Uther]

Well since I got my CH yoke, the Ju88 and especially the Heinkel feel totally different, much heavier and more 'real'. For me the difference between flying a 'heavy' with a light,quick moving Fighterstick and the slower moving, more physical actions of the yoke has made a surprising difference.
So, how much are our peripherals playing a part in the equation.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Interesting thread.

In a related aspect, I've been flying RED online Hurricane Rotols and Spitfire 1a's. They handle very well for the majority of my flying except for one area: fine aiming. It seemed like I was "chasing the reticle" when attempting to place the gun sight pipper on a specific location of the target aircraft. With a suggestion from fellow pilot Catseye, I adjusted the joystick curve (X and Y axis) in my Warthog's TARGET software to change the linear sensitivity to an S-curve. I still get full deflection at the extreme travel of the joystick, but towards the center of both axis I can now make much finer adjustments -- it makes me feel less "ham-fisted". By the same token, for my CH Pedals I simply turned the sensitivity of the pedals from default "1" (= full sensitivity) down to "0" (= less sensitivity) in the ingame menu Options/Controls/Axis.


A side benefit is that ordinary maneuvring feels noticeably smoother overall, plus I'm now able to pour what feels to be a higher % of rounds on target now.

My apologies if this falls outside this thread topic or has been discussed at length in an earlier thread.