posted 04-20- 10:26 AM               

A discussion in another thread got me thinking. Combining the original plane-set with the existing and soon-to-be aircraft we have some 25+ planes, I issue this challenge ...

"PICK AN AIRCRAFT ... GATHER DATA ... READ THE OP DUCUMENTATION ... READ THE FM TUTS OUT THERE ... AND DO A FM!"

Now ... I'm not being an ass here ... I just realized, right now we have something like 25+ aircraft and only 4 or 5 FM gurus and "I'm" getting burned out ...

Think of this as a cry for help! "WE NEED MORE FM GUYS AS MORE AIRCRAFT COME TO BE"

Tail and I have always been open to helping anyone get into the FM gig ... few have the nads to take us up though ... prove us wrong.

There ... I said it ... I feel better.

Oh, BTW ... Tail and I are a bit "possesive" of a few aircraft ...

So if you don't mind ... leave the P47D and the FW190D to me ...

So STAND UP AND SHOW ME YOUR BALLS!! (WOW did I really say that?)

posted 04-20- 11:16 AM               

I'm learning what I can guys, and I'm sure others are trying to.. but to be honest.. you guys got very good at this before alot of us got here.. we're playing catch up, and not really doing a great job, you know your stuff too well lol

posted 04-20- 11:19 AM               

No.no.no ... You mis understand ...

I want more "flight-model" tweakers, not more aircraft! (though the thought doesn't necessarily give me hives)

I undertook way to many FM jobs and IMHO spread myself too thin and didn't devote the attention I really needed to ...

I personally selected two planes: the P47D and the Dora ... I "WANT" to give these two planes my undivided attention and make them function the best I can.

WE NEED OTHERS TO PICK UP THE SLACK! ... sorry ... I'm "recruting"

posted 04-20- 11:25 AM               

N problem mon! (by best rasta voice)

Actually ...

When I jumped onto the FM train, I know "nothing" ... All I had was the motivation of "wanting" the planes to fly right and not be the laughing stock they were ...

Tailslide ... Pang ... and Pete really forged my knowledge. All I brought to the table was a knack for ferreting out data and I learned to apply that data by stumbing through ...

OPStudio have made a world of difference as far as FM-tweaking goes ... I REALLY allows you to "see" what your doing and I just could not live without it at this point!

posted 04-20- 12:02 PM               

That being said...I don't have a stopwatch, and I won't let a ruler near my computer, hehehe...but if any testing is needed on the Spitfire that doesn't require completely hard data, I am willing to be a tester. Let's see...does my Spit out-turn everything, possess complete armor, is it able to run in stealth mode, does one round from the cannon blow up 3 enemy planes within 5 miles of me...yeah, seems right!!!

------------------
nealg=FC=

PS: I might add that for every new FM modeler, there is a need also for testers..these guys need the help of fliers, too. Especially if you can give hard data feedback - but the feedback is important!! And if ya offer to test, let them know what you find out; it's amazing what they can do whether you include exact data findings, or can just say " I don't know, but that climb rate just feels funny " or something like that. Sure, it takes a little time...but look at the time these folks are putting in, and it isn't really all that much for flight testing after all.. So, if Zur doesn't mind, I'll add a challenge to his, only for testers!! My hand is up!! ( Ah, what fools these Chickens be! )

posted 04-20- 12:05 PM               

I know you would probably prefer if I jumped in with existing models, but I need to cut my teeth on something I love (I think you can probably relate to this...). After that I will be willing to work on helping to make all planes better. There will be a help wanted post soon in the main forum for an OpenPlane wizard. Hopefully I shouldnt have to take too much of anyones time since the model (externally anyway) is done.

------------------
Snickers
=FC=

posted 04-20- 12:08 PM               

"NOTHING" will give you a clearer "clue" as to what does what, than to view an aircraft with OPS ... Things to look at is:

Positioning of inertia boxes ... how their shaped ... what's their densities ... DOF positions ... inertia box volumes ...

"SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND" ...

[Zur starts pasting up the "WE NEED YOU POSTERS"] ...

posted 04-20- 12:12 PM               

Man ... I'd love to help ya but my modeling skills are right about as good as basketball skills (yes... I'm a short white man that throws a brick) ...

I'm sure one of the model-gurus will pipe in and offer up!

Good-luck!

posted 04-20- 12:45 PM               

But this work would have to come second to what I do at the War Paint Factory. If this went well I would like to do the same for the B-17. Zoy and I will be doing a C-47 soon, maybe we could work on the B-17 at the same time.

posted 04-20- 01:02 PM               

When you're adding cockpit reflections can you make it optional? My vid card takes a big hit with them on.

posted 04-20- 01:11 PM               

Please do not hesitate to ask us anything ...

Despite what some would lead you to believe ... Tail and I are quite friendly and would LOVE to share what ever FM-tweakage info we can!

posted 04-20- 01:34 PM               

The other thing that I think needs to happen at some point is the consolidation on THIS board somewhere of the various tutorials, docs, etc, AND some kind of "target online standard" that you need to work toward; i.e. "airspeed tweaking must result in in game speed within 5% of source data X." or "Damage points for wing objects on fighters are to fall within the scale of 35 points (A6M5) to 85 points (P-47) or the aircraft will not meet online standard." (Just throwing those numbers out as example, not as opinion of relative strength).

That might be contentious for a while, but we can't have one guy using US Navy test data for the Hellcat and some other guy debunking it with "America's Hundred Thousand," or some guy doing the Dora with actual German language test reports and somebody else disputing it with Eric Brown's tests of a captured one.

I don't think it's fair to expect Zur and one or two other guys to have to do EVERY single flight model for any plane that gets built, but I also think we need to have a bit better "information clearinghouse" set up if we're going to have "decentralized" FM building for online use.

Oh yeah, I forgot...wouldn't mind working with Raider on the P-51. I think I know someone else who would be interested on the graphical end of that project too...

------------------
--jedi--

posted 04-20- 01:41 PM               

Your absolutely right.

Problem is ... I nary have the time to work on the FMs, let alone develope a tutorial/doc site ...

There are really only a handfull of doc on FM'ing at the moment ... and truth be told, much of what you need to know is in them or simply needs to be experianced. In know that sounds like a "cop-out" ... but really, You know first-hand how the FM snowballs once you start to understand what does what!

posted 04-20- 02:02 PM               

I called "dibs" on the P47D and the Fw109D ... Tail seems to want to keep his elbows deep in the Yak, 190A4, Tiffie and Spits (you ask me he's a glutton for punishment)

That leaves:

P-51D
P-51B
P-38J
B-17G
B-17F
ME-262
JU-88
FW-190A3
BF-109E
BF-109F
BF-109G
BF-109K
A5M6 Zero
He-100
Hurricane
Lancaster
Mossie
F4F

(I know I'm missing something ... can't figure out what)

AND ... I can't speak for the WWI fellas ... but it "seems" as if they have their own show going in regards to the FM (I may be wrong though) ...

Guidlines?

I'd say get the "basics" first ...

1.) top speed @ given alt. (Most specs give a specific alt that the aircraft hits top speed... i.e. the P47D's is 428@32,000ft.)

2.) 360-degree turn speed (Some sources list this in seconds and other list this as degree's per second)

3.) Roll rate (seconds or degrees per second to roll 360-degrees) Usually this also indicates alt. and airspeed performed at.

4.) Climb-rate .. (I'm not entirely sure on this one myself) Maybe Tail or someone can enlighten me?

5.) Stall speed w/wo flaps (This "to my understanding) is the speed in which the plane "departs" despite even applying "back-stick pressure) Someone correct me if I'm wrong ...

IMHO ... If you can get the planes to perform these five things within a reasonable proximity ... and this data is within + or - 3% of any given source ... your doing "damn good".

[This message has been edited by Zurawski (edited 04-20-2000).]

posted 04-20- 02:13 PM               

My understanding from at least one report I've seen is that climb rate is tested from a full tank.

I test stall speed as the speed at which I can no longer maintain constant altitude.

Also if the planes had any special handling characteristics (like the 109's tightening up at high speeds) its great to have that as well.

posted 04-20- 02:29 PM               

One catch though... I will need help - mostly questions answered as they arise. It's funny, I feel like I know everything, but everytime I try to do something, it turns out that I don't know how to do it... how can this be?

Maybe a good FM "how-to" site would spark the "Flight Model Wizard" inside each of us just waiting to come out.

------------------
-Sv =FC=

WWI in SDOE!

posted 04-20- 02:30 PM               

What version of the PBY are you doing? I may have some useful stuff here somewhere.

posted 04-20- 02:37 PM               

ABSO'frickn'LUTELY!

I'd say if you CAN do a tut/doc ... it would be a perfect WTF? resource! Hell, I know Tail has a couple of tuts that would be perfect starting point!

posted 04-20- 03:05 PM               

135 IAS. That's near stall speed for a fighter!

I forget what lumbering giants some WWII aircraft were.

posted 04-20- 03:41 PM               

Vne (or "never exceed" speed): this is the speed you never SHOULD exceed in a dive. It's a CYA speed derived by the manufacturers giving you a safety margin of unknown magnitude before the aircraft structure fails. In reality kind of meaningless in combat, because it's not the speed at which anything bad would necessarily happen, nor is it the max speed the airplane will go. For gaming purposes, if you don't have the maximum DEMONSTRATED dive speed available, I'd say adding 10-30 mph to the Vne speed and then shake, rattle, rolling, and crumbling should start occuring somewhere on the airframe.

Real "max" speed is the max level speed attained in testing. You can usually get about 3 or 4 different values for this, depending on where you look. Be sure to convert from knots into mph (knots x 1.15 = mph) if the quoted figure is in knots. Also, some accounts will talk about "indicated airspeed" while we have "true airspeed" in SDOE as near as I can tell, and the difference between the two can be as much as 100 mph! The conversion from one to the other is a bit complex, but there are tables available to do it.

The other point, of course, is what is our "tolerance" going to be for numbers? I can quote you a top speed of 425 mph at 20K for the F4U-1D, and within a couple of minutes, somebody will throw 417 mph in my face from AHT and claim it's the "correct" number. We need to agree either to accept a single source like AHT as the definitive source, or agree to accept any "reasonable" documentation that the flight modeler has been able to unearth as "acceptable within the range of uncertainty of front line aircraft performance vs test conditions."

In other words, the degree of "precision" we apply to our FMs is dependent to a large extent on what we use for data.

posted 04-20- 03:43 PM               

Welcome aboard!

What do you need?

1.) OPStudio (latest version)
2.) Patience (absolute must)
3.) Stopwatch (OK .. in a pinch you can just count)
4.) Tails and soon SVs FM doc (FM bibles)
5.) The OP Document (read and 'try" to understand)
5.) VERY specific data
6.) An aircraft

That's about it ...

Try to pick something you know and love. For me the P47 and the Dora are near my favorite aircraft (can't wait for a P40) .. Gather specs and more specs ... You'll quickly learn you can stumble upon data you had no clue existed. (Note: look in the oddest places)

Set up your joystick and rudder (if you have one) ... to justify a 1-to-1 ratio of input to control surface responce. Do this even if you have to text edit your .ini lines in your sdemons.ini

Lastly ... understand it's all "trial and error" ... you will stend hours making a small adjustment and saving ... open FSSDOE and test ... making a small adjustment ... repeat.

posted 04-20- 03:55 PM               

My logic is this ... try to find more than once source to cooberate your data. IMHO, if you can find two sources that agree ... use it and tell anyone who disagrees with you to prove you wrong and not with just "one" source to argue.

BTW ... In the P47D you'll note Bjorn used obprob to simulate possible engine "health" This allows "some" planes to exhibit better than average engine performance and other to exhibit wear.

posted 04-20- 04:03 PM               

Every time I look at the Jug or I-16, I find another great idea to steal...

posted 04-20- 04:12 PM               

I am in a strange place - I know physics pretty well and how the OpenPlane engine does most of its magic, but I have no great experience with actually producing good final flight models... let's say I know more of the science than the art

So what should the tutorials focus on? Should I assume all the knowledge of how a plane flys and concentrate on how a plane flys in SDOE? Or should I do both? Who is the audience?

How much should the focus be on stats and what they mean/how they are calculated vs. how you get your plane to do this in SDOE?

Or is this all needed? Give me a starting point... what would help?

My SE5a site tried to take the complex and overwhealming and make it accessable in a step by step manner... should I do the same here? Should I make a "create a perfect SE5a flight model" site and detail the process start to end?

I agree with you Zur, if we can get some of the people who want to do this, but think they never good, doing this, ...think of the future!

posted 04-20- 04:32 PM               

I'd take the "baby-steps" approach ...

Maybe a explaination of "what-does-what/difinition" ... you know that "is" the chord and what does it pertain to in OP and OPS?

then ... a simple "step-by-step"

Than maybe a more "advanced" explaination for guys that have a handle on the simpler stuff?