posted 04-21- 01:48 PM               

What sort of features should we start building in as "standard" for online planes? Not talking just graphics or 3D model stuff, but "targets" for building damage and flight models as well. If we can agree on what should be in the planes, and make that relatively common knowledge, and identify some guys who know how to do this stuff quickly and consistently, maybe we can create a sort of "online factory" that takes a guy's mostly sorta kinda finished beta and tweaks it into a usable online aircraft, or at least provide him a good guide for doing it himself. These things would represent a MINIMUM level of modeling before you could expect your plane to be in a "sanctioned" plane pack, but would also provide a list of folks willing to help guys to actually ACHIEVE that level, so that everyone's plane can become "online standard" as soon as possible. Nothing would stop you from building in more stuff of course, or refining an airplane again after it already met the "standard."

I'll throw out my own ideas, let you guys flame em or add to em, and maybe after a few days we can create an agreeable list that can be posted somewhere. Here goes...

3D Model:

--Gear retracts and gear doors operate
--Flaps are correct type and operate
--Nose or tailwheel steering is available if selected
--Canopy or crew door opens
--"Special" features like tailhooks or folding wings or slats or extendable weapons racks or gun packs modeled if installed on the real plane
--Animated pilot head "turret" tracks targets

Flight Model:

--Aircraft can be stalled, spun, and recovered.
--Aircraft meets top speed, climb rate, and time-to-climb within (5 percent?) from sea level to (10000?) feet.
--Aircraft can be flown to takeoff and landing within visual confines of the runway, with full fuel and weapons load (does not need to be able to land with full weapons load).
--Turn rate, roll rate, turn radius fall within 10 percent of available data.
--Fuel tank and engine have inertia boxes and properly located C of G.

Damage Model:

--Fuel tanks are separate, damageable objects
--Fuel tanks can be set onfire
--Fuel tanks can leak fuel
--Engine performance varies with damage level
--Engine can catch fire
--Fire damage affects overall damage
--Pilot can be injured and killed
--Wing damage affects wing components such as gun jamming, landing gear failure, loss of flaps or flight control effectiveness, fuel tank leakage
--Fuselage damage affects components such as fuel tank leakage, pilot injury, landing gear failure, gun jamming
--Allowable range for obHit points for each aircraft part from "weakest plane" to "strongest plane," i.e. Inner Wing obHits may be 50-200, Engine obHits may be 25-100, etc for each part that has obHit properties. That way it doesn't take one 20mm hit to blow the wing off your plane, but 15 of em only jams my left machineguns.

Just ideas there, and I'm not married to any of em. I've just seen some really cool stuff in some of the planes, and I don't see why some of those great ideas can't be applied to all of em. Add your own, we'll toss out the ones that are too "controversial," and hopefully when the dust settles we'll have at least a workable set of guidelines that might help us keep the number of aircraft updates to a minimum, and lead to early betas that are really final betas

posted 04-21- 01:56 PM               

Training Missions:
--Take off
--Landing
--Ground Attack
--Air to Air

Hangar
--Mission
--Pic
--Stats

posted 04-21- 02:13 PM               

It would also be nice to have a Scramble mission for each new plane.

With some of the newer planes even the Training dogfight mission uses real ammo - not realistic but more fun than shooting bb's at your opponent.

I also like Bjorn's landing gear that flies off if lowered at too high a speed.

posted 04-21- 07:22 PM               

the AI should be able to take off

posted 04-24- 09:09 AM               

Of the features mentioned so far, which do you think should be "mandatory" (if there is such a thing) and which are just "nice to have?" For example, we might say that new planes MUST have landing gear drag modeled, but only SHOULD have a Scramble Mission or skin template.

I'll give this a few more days, then summarize into a "standard guideline" and see what folks think. Hopefully each "required" standard will inspire someone to write a "how-to" for it...

posted 04-24- 09:46 AM               

RE: The AI and groound handeling ...

Actually, IMHO ... the AI seems to have been coded around the "default" FMs. It's with the introduction of the higher fidelity FMs that the AI started to have troubles ...

This I surmise is due to the fact that the AI attempts to fly each and every planes (within their plane-set. i.e .. bombers, fighter ect.)... exactly the same way.

Problem with that is obviously the take-off proceedures for say the P47D is grossly different than a Spitfire's ... plain and simple.

So in essence ... as the FMs get closer and closer to high-fidelity ... it's inhererent that the AI will have problems taking off ...

It's not a case of poor ground handeling ... it's a case of moronic AI rotines!

posted 04-24- 11:55 AM               

I was more concerned about making sure that "player-flown" planes meet a common standard for being deemed "safe for online use." I don't know that the AI being unable to take off would mean it wasn't a "suitable" plane for plane pack inclusion.

Room for discussion there of course...

posted 04-24- 12:31 PM               

Wouldn't this put a big contraint on mission builders and the on-line community?

posted 04-24- 01:35 PM               

AFAIK ... "all" planes can take-off and fly reasonably well ...

Just some planes require more "airfield" than the condensed ones FS provides!

Again ... there are a few "newer" FM tweaks coming in the next PP ... that for all intent and purpose ...will make ground-handeling and AI take-offs "better"

posted 04-24- 04:21 PM               

I dont like the canopy thing, its too special somehow, i.e. the Mig-3 canopy opens to the side, but this was only possible on the ground, so the pilot once in the air, was dammed to land the plane or die. I mean I dont know how I should such thing make working in SDOE.
Crew door also - If I would add the crew door to the Pe-2 it would increase the polycount about 50 or more polys, and that just for the look of a moving crew door ? Thats to special for me. It should be "allowed" to make tradeoffs in the model.

"Flaps are correct type and operate" - Ha give me a tip how I could make this with the I16´s ailerons (wich where also used as flaps)

Diego - F10 view ? Is this the gun-view or what ? I use the quick views only to look at the main instruments, and when I´m in a fight I dont look much at them

I would add this to the list:

- correct polyflags for correct hit detection !

- different engine powers on startup

And I would keep it "open" because often you dont got the data for turn rates etc. Also some things depend on the different planes (like canopy´s or cockpit view etc.)

LK

posted 04-24- 04:27 PM               

In fact I am finding that as the FM tweaking advances and gets closer to reality that the take-offs get easier, not counting the out-of-the-box FM's.

This is all the more reason to make AI take-offs a "standard" unless someone comes up with a FM that is without doubt realistic and the AI can't handle it.

posted 04-24- 07:46 PM            

3D models:

o minmize use of textures
o cockpit reflections must be optional
via an included cockpit file.
o make full use of lower detail LODs with appropriate switch in distances. VERY important
o appropriate damage LODs to match damage
model
o correct cloud glass
o correct quick views
o correct shadow

Flight model:

o what is airspeed being measured in?
TAS? should we have a IAS instrument?
I assume the engine output doesn't vary
with altitude, any way to fake this?
I assume prop efficiency changes
with alt?

o Stall speed clean and dirty should be
with 10% of published
specs.

o can we do flap damage or flaps push back up
if flaps are deployed at too high a speed?

Damage model:

pilot armor should be modeled if pilot
kills are modeled.

posted 04-24- 10:27 PM               

My biggest problem with take offs and the P47 is it runs out of runway because its stupid.

With a full load (never watched without) it uses half flaps or full flaps (not sure) and it just runs right off then end

I don't know what its waiting for but after a couple bounces it pulls sharply back on the stick. So much that it almost stalls.

I would personally not use the flaps and pull off gently.

Can't you change some of that stuff in the plane itself?

Laika - FOR SURE I think some of the stock planes don't have the correct poly hit flags. I find in slew mode in can shoot right through stuff into the ground. Whats with that?

Hippie - Yep i think we have to be carefull and remember that not everyone has P3 500s and 16-32 meg cards.

Nat are you talking about the He-162? I think ya got your #s confused
There is a Me-163 but its not out yet.

posted 04-25- 02:54 PM               

x "via included cockpit file" did you mean an extra .sm for the cockpit (I dont like that), or just an description of the instruments?

x "correct quick views", is there a standart out what is correct and what is not ? The "keyboard command list" I got says "Quick views vary vehicle to vehicle"

x "minimize usage of textures" -hmm, would make it easier for me (or for the builder/texture mapper), in the other hand some people would scream and ask why are the textures mirrored etc. ?

x cloudglas&shadows - still got no idea how to make this - a tutorial might be useful

posted 04-25- 04:44 PM            

I have to agree with Hippie on the proper use of LODS. This is very important in maintaining respectable framerates both on and offline.

posted 04-25- 04:48 PM            

IAS *can* be modeled, but it's one heck of a hard job. I did experiment with this way back on the Spit IX, but we who worked on it decided to scrap it. It worked so-so, but it was very difficult to get good results.