Friday 2010-06-17 Dev. update and Discussion Thread

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

Doesn't RoF incorporate some bending features....?

I have to laugh.

ROF doesn't even get crashes modeled correctly, in the least.

And now with neoqb being forced out in favor of takeover by 777 Studios, I believe that ROF is in it's last days.

[JVM]

Why would you say that, ElAurens?

I understand 777 Studios is quite dedicated to the aerial simulation world (didn't they have one of their own in development?) and maybe it was Neoqb which was unable to pursue the development for some reason and in this case that a chance for RoF to continue?
I am just asking, I do not know the answer...

JV

[addman]

Big thanks zapatista! Didn't think I would get any anwsers since most posts are about how well modeled the seagulls cloac will be. Wow! Nice to see those features being implemented, now I'm out of questions and eagerly await the release date

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

I have to laugh.

ROF doesn't even get crashes modeled correctly, in the least.

And now with neoqb being forced out in favor of takeover by 777 Studios, I believe that ROF is in it's last days.

Fair enough, sorry my ignorance annoys you.

[katdogfizzow]

stunning!

[fireflyerz]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

Fair enough, sorry my ignorance annoys you.

Dont worry .ed , its not your fault your not in the elitest nobhead club , I think they go by the code name "senior member" , Im thinking of talking down to somone next week , that should be enough to get me in dont you think...?

Ps , Whats happend to your avatar on the forums with no names , I was enjoying chopping the fingers off Mr Winstoned.

[philip.ed]

Haha, needed that mate

I'll do it this afternoon!

[lbuchele]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

I have to laugh.

ROF doesn't even get crashes modeled correctly, in the least.

And now with neoqb being forced out in favor of takeover by 777 Studios, I believe that ROF is in it's last days.

It´s just your own opinion.
To me, the crashes are accurate enough for a light wooden and canvas aircraft.
I don´t expect that such aircraft explode in a million of parts crashing and the photos I have seen shows more intact aircraft
( if it doesn´t catch fire,of course ) after crashes that more modern, metal built aircraft.
ROF is in good hands with 777 studios.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by lbuchele

It´s just your own opinion.
To me, the crashes are accurate enough for a light wooden and canvas aircraft.

not really, in most crashes there is just a very simplified "canned" damage model implemented that doesnt take the actual physical forces into account working on the airframe.

a good example of this is flying an aircraft from 4000 m altitude straight into the ground at maximum speed (or plummeting to earth after having its wings shot off at that same altitude). in RoF the aircraft will hit the ground, bounce a couple of times, and come to rest with a wing or few other things broken. it looks no different then an aircraft that crashed from 20 meters, yet it should completely disintegrate with its engine half buried into the ground when it plunges down from 4000 meters at full speed.

Originally Posted by lbuchele

I don´t expect that such aircraft explode in a million of parts crashing and the photos I have seen shows more intact aircraft
( if it doesn´t catch fire,of course ) after crashes that more modern, metal built aircraft.
ROF is in good hands with 777 studios.

many historical pictures from crashed aircraft in ww-1 with the aircraft being fairly intact would have been lower speed crashes and from lower altitudes, there are plenty of pictures showing disintegrated aircraft when the crash was more severe.

other then a low speed crash in RoF, crashes and physical forces working on the aircraft frame are fairly poorly modeled. enough for some eye candy, just not very realistic

[KaHzModAn]

Originally Posted by zapatista

not really, in most crashes there is just a very simplified "canned" damage model implemented that doesnt take the actual physical forces into account working on the airframe.

a good example of this is flying an aircraft from 4000 m altitude straight into the ground at maximum speed (or plummeting to earth after having its wings shot off at that same altitude). in RoF the aircraft will hit the ground, bounce a couple of times, and come to rest with a wing or few other things broken. it looks no different then an aircraft that crashed from 20 meters, yet it should completely disintegrate with its engine half buried into the ground when it plunges down from 4000 meters at full speed.

did you play ROF ? I don't say physical forces are calculated to affect the damage model accordingly... but it's not as bad as you say

from 4000m straight into the ground isn't possible without loosing your wings, so yes, you don't "burry your engine in the ground", but i'm pretty sure we are years away from a sim where impacts will realistically deform the ground...

so you hit the ground at maximum speed ? you know its around 250km/h for the fastest planes right ? even an I-16 can go almost twice that speed ! some WW2 planes can land at the max speed of a late WW1 plane... so why should it instantly be desintegrated ?