FM and real flight

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by BP_Tailspin

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]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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]

Originally Posted by jf1981

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]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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

random remark?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by BP_Tailspin

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]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

..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]

Originally Posted by Buzpilot

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]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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]

Originally Posted by Buzpilot

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]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

..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

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