posted 01-01- 05:15 PM               

P.P.S. You can find the updated Go-229 at my site: http://ArgonV.tripod.com/My_Page.html The Go-229 is now FINALLY plane pack ready/worthy. A few more details are in the works. A new (Fixed actually) mapping by Nat, a new night figther skin by Diego and a radar array by Aladar.

posted 01-01- 06:29 PM               

At the moment, there's not really a "quality control" test on planepack planes (and there only really was one when ALL the planes in the pack were modified by the same team). Now they're included if most folks want em, warts and all. Most of the planes are also still "works in progress." I guess you have to decide whether a "standardized" He-162 that's not a stable gun platform (and is that a bug or a realism feature?) is better than no online He-162 at all.

The other thing is that when you find a suspected error, you need to post it, and why you think it's an error. If you've tried to work on one of the models, you know they can be pretty complex, especially with some of the stuff that's being added now. Sometimes you just miss something.

posted 01-01- 06:31 PM               

TS

posted 01-01- 08:39 PM               

I will agree with tail and Nat. If you get the plane to match (within a certain percentage) the performance curves, the rest will mostly fall in place.

As an example, if the speed curves are correct for the plane and you cant reach your target, then work on tactics, not the model....

posted 01-02- 05:45 AM               

When you build a plane for the game, you have to accept compromises. This is inevitable. People are trying to make the game engine do things it was never designed for, to simulate realtiy better. Sometimes, you lose something to gain something.

With the things you mentioned, recoil should be there. very few planes were stable enough or heavy enough to avoid recoil. Also, with zoomed in gunsights, I never use zoom. I think it's 'cheating' a little. I zoom back to see the cockpit detail, and it makes things lots more challenging. Especially when you don't ID your targets.

Plane handling should be as near to 'right' as possible, but still flyable by the AI. Apart from that, it's all pretty much a matter of opinion. Some planes don't pick up speed quickly. Some need to be flown carefully to keep the energy up. I wouldn't like to say if this is right or not.

Planepack readiness is always controversial. If people are playing with a plane, having no problems, and enough people ask for it, then in it goes. If you want to organise a standard, and enforce it, you need to volunteer for the planepack team and get stuck in!

posted 01-02- 07:06 PM               

Now don't get me wrong in anyway here, if you aint happy with them, fix them, it's one thing to point out problems with certain airacraft, but it's completely another to say we haven't got any worth flying, thats an insult to anyone thats ever made an aircraft for SDOE, ven if it's not perfect, the guys done his best, accept it that way, or improve it yourself.

Currently we have at least 30 aircraft for SDOE, there must be something other than the 2 aircraft you've mentioned that will fly to your liking. More work this, more work that... damn, go fix it, don't you notice that people here are actualy trying the best to produce new and better things here.

The guys do their best man, cut em some slack, fly something else if you don't like those 2, hell I haven't flown the 109's in ages cause they handle so bad, but on the other hand I don't post about it being so bad, and I know that each plane is always being looked at in one way or another, everything can't be made perfect all at once.

posted 01-02- 07:50 PM            

SDOE is like CFSI and CFSII, open to users planes and ideas. We really love the fact that we can choose from so many planes and that a new one may be around the corner. If that plane is not perfect in flight or design so be it, fly it and enjoy it as is.

posted 01-02- 10:34 PM               

Simply put, just about everything about this game is a work in progress. Some planes may never progress any further, others will. Most every builder here tries to build up to a standard that he/she has in his/her mind. Most peoples standards are the same, and thus most of the beta aircraft that have ben around long enough are "complete" to everyones liking. Alot of the newer aircraft are still being worked on because... well, they are new! Just wait around a while and things will get done.

posted 01-03- 01:07 AM               

For Alpharomeo, sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it. Also. if you run across an issue with a plane, provide specifics as to which plane (which model too). Someone else on the list is bound to take a look at it and see if they have the same problem. For graphics issues, sometimes it boils down to video card mfg, driver version, and directx version or Glide version.

Attitude towards the developers is important- these guys aren't paid. For example, I still think the P-47 rolls too slow, but instead of complaining about it, I stated my opinion, presented some evidence, and have chosen to not continue pushing this until I have more facts. (I've also downloaded all of the openplane info in the hopes I can learn it and contribute to the development). So now I spend some time plugging around on the internet, looking at websites, and putting out posts on message boards trying and get concrete info. If I get it I'll present it to the Jug development team in the spirit of trying to make the model better to fly. For now- I have a blast flying the "Jug" and I greatly appreciate all the work that went into it, as this was a completely new build from the ground up.

As far as your note on testing, there are a lot of other things that need to be considered. For example, shooting at ground targets. Were you level or in a dive? Are you aware that in a real P-51 it would ALWAYS pull to the right in a dive (not a lot, but noticeable in a more extended dive) and required light rudder pressure to keep in a straight line? As you dive you gain airspeed which may require down pressure on the elevator to keep the nose down. Did you also know you can "stall" in a dive when your angle of attack is too great? This will cause the nose to drop even more. There is also compressability, elevator blanking and a bunch of other variables you need to consider.

Next, did you level off and trim the Corsair or Go-229 at the altitude and speed you were going to be conducting your ground attack at? Even then, if you jockey the throttle while trying to line up your shot, the nose will pull up or down with the airspeed change, and some planes will tend to roll with the torque created by the engine as the throttle is jockeyed. (Especially those with a higher horsepower/torque to weight ratio).

Next, how long did you wait, what altitude were you at, and how much throttle change did you apply to the Spit to get to full throttle? Because of the increased drag caused by the thicker air at low altitudes, speeds tend to be slower for most planes and acceleration takes longer. Or, if you're close to the planes max ceiling, it doesn't have the guts to leap out when full throttle is applied. At low altitudes, sometimes you'd have to drop the nose to gain airspeed in planes with good higher altitude performance because of the drag created by the thicker air. The plane could hold this higher speedonce gained, but couldn't overcome the drag enough with the propeller alone to increase speed. This is because you add gravity, which is an acclerating force. (Velocity = speed/time, Acceleration= speed squared/time). In addition, you don't have a linear correspondence between throttle settings and airspeed; i.e. going from 50% throttle to 100% throttle doesn't double your airspeed. Tthe actual speed increase can be affected by the plane itself and depends on weight, drag (affected by external loadout), propeller characteristics, trim (a plane trimmed at a given altitude has less drag than if it was trimmed at a greater or lesser altitude), and airfoil. Also "low speed" varies depending on what altitude you're at.

I agree with Tail that turn, climb, and speed need to be worked on first. These characteristics define the plane being flown more than any others. I'd also add gun damage(which can be worked on seperately and is being worked on).

Are you aware that CFS2's goal was to get the planes to perform within 5% of the real performance curves? This seems pretty close until you consider that a plane with a top speed of 400 mph performing at -5% can be caught by a plane with a top speed of 380 mph performing anywhere between +1% to +5%. (OUCH)

Hope I didnt offend you, but you can see why airplane development using a real physiscs engine takes a while (and these guys don't have wind tunnels, engineering teams, and 8 hours a day for 3-5 years of development on these planes like the real ones did )

Cripes, can I get long winded or what
------------------
"Where'd he GO!?!?"
thunk-thunk-thunk-zing-OUCH
That answered my question

[This message has been edited by Da Jug head (edited 01-03-2001).]

posted 01-03- 04:48 AM               

The complexity of flight modelling has to be experienced to be believed! That is why I tend to work on bombers! Sure, the models are VERY complex, but the flight models are easier! No one moans that you have a slow roll rate, or that the plane doesn't pick up speed right...As long as it can pull itself into the air with a full load, and reach max speed, you can't go far wrong!

FM's will always be controversial, people have different ideas on how a plane should fly. Most of us have never flown the real thing, so at best, we have the opinions of others who have, or at worst, a complete guess based on a few published figures.

As long as criticism remains CONSTRUCTIVE, and informed ( note Da Jug Head's research before posting ) then no builder will complain. You are helping!

On the other hand, telling someone who has worked night and day for months on a plane that his plane is all wrong, will always get a sharp response!

posted 01-03- 11:09 AM               

I can only speak for Tailslide and myself here... But I can assure you 100%, that we "ALWAYS" apply known and documented flight-model specifications when available.

"Fudging" is a last resort solution when either there "is" not available data, or the OP engine does not support the specific application.

Problem arises in the fact that everyone has their personal "impression" or "interpitation" of what/how a flight model should be. This is furtheer compounded by those who attempt to use stories... recollections... and accounts to validate a flight-model neuance.

Simply put... developing a flight-model to please "everyone" is near impossible.

All FM-gurus can do is model to specifications as best as we/they can... If we model a FM as close as data and limitations allow. That quite frankly is "the best we can do".

As previously stated... Those who have delved into the FMs have done so whole-heartedly. Speaking only formyself, I know I've invested pallpark'ish 40 hours into "every" aircraft I worked on... This includes research and FM application.

...As you can see, it's no small feat.

...Jug,

posted 01-03- 11:44 PM               

So- messin with me huh ? When I posted you couldn't find the data and you had me check it a 20,000 ft. Tryin to mess with the old gray matter :-) ? Well, you're too late, I have 3 teenage boys- there isn't any left to mess with .

This explains the difference in the time you said you had tested it out to and what I got. And probably why my rolls were slower.

BTW I LOVE that plane- this is the first Jug in a sim I've flown (with all the realism turned on) where I could fight the german planes using real P-47 tactics and make it work.

posted 01-04- 01:40 AM               

No mess'n Jug... just "old'timers" kick'n in here as well...

Actually, I found the original sites from which I garnered the information...

posted 01-04- 01:44 PM            

You're original point is not lost, standardization of features and quality would be nice, but in order to acheive that you're going to have to use strong-arm tactics that will only drive away people from the game.

I didn't choose to write this as though I were one more guy standing in a line shaking a finger at you, but trying to explain this to you from my perspective because I felt the exact same thing you did, so hopefully by sharing my conclusions with you, the path to finding them will be shorter.

Werner

posted 01-04- 06:06 PM               

I got a list of some P-47 related sites from a guy at the P-47 Advocates site. I'll compare the two and send you any links if they're not on your list. Not a lot of technical infoon these sites, but some good stories.

posted 01-04- 08:23 PM               

There are too many models now to expect the OPP guys to quality control ALL of them, and not enough guys who understand the flight model tweaking process well enough to get EVERY model "just right." The FM stuff is quite a bit more tedious and frustrating than the physical modeling IMO.

Be that as it may, there are probably a number of guys who can tweak "The Big 3": top speed, climb rate, roll rate, but you have to provide some usable data to back up your claim of "error." The original Corsair model matched "real" top speed and roll almost exactly, and the climb was about as close as I could get it, within the constraints of SDOE's bizarre atmosphere model and the "200 mph rocket climb bug" as I call it Turn performance isn't quite so easy to tweak, IMO, and there isn't very good data, except anecdotal stuff like, "The F4U doesn't turn like a Zero." Not very useful

So, if you want a builder to change a model, the onus is on YOU to come up with some data for him. Show me how many degrees per second a Corsair turns at what G-loading at 250, 200, and 150 mph, and I'll make the model do that. Otherwise, I'll just make it turn "worse than the Zero," and if it walks on an FW-190, too bad

And if you want me to make it NOT tend to nose up in a dive as it speeds up, or make it "easy to aim," well, I think maybe that's the Incom T-65 or the Microsoft Fighter Ace F4U you're thinking about, not the Chance Vought F4U (or any other aircraft ever flown in WWII)

posted 01-04- 10:23 PM               

When I said "However, if I want my friends to play that game in my 2 computer network at home, they need a flyable plane." I mean some of my friends just said "I don't want to fly this or that plane".

Nat, Hawk, I guess I ended up saying the opposite of what I mean. But I am sure you will understand my point now. I REALLY appreciate the TREMENDOUS effort made by the team. Many planes are flyable and enjoyable, I pointed some aspects where some improvements were required and I never said I didn't like it, in fact, I love that PP6 pack.

But we are going off-topic.

I just wanted to suggest some standard tests in order to make sure gamers will enjoy the huge and amazing design job. I belong to another forum and I learned that one of the secrets of a succesful game is gameplay. If something happens with gameplay, some gamers just say "damn bug" and the saddest story involving playability problems, is an old DOS game called Battlecruiser. "Great concept but poor implementation" was the general comment of CD Magazine.

Once I had the occasion to provide feedback to a 3D space sim developer. Some screenshots were presented and I said "Planet texture look like a Zebra". Really, that texture would destroy the whole enchantment of that beautiful sim.

I prefer to say some planes need some retouch (for future plane packs) instead of remain silent and just think "my friends will reject this plane".

You may take this suggestion or just ignore it. My opinion has been stated and clarified, I hope. So I would think you, guys, will understand the point instead of think "this is a destructive comment from some fool who hates such a wonderful game and pack".

I love the game. I love the pack. But I think those tests are necessary. END OF FILE.

posted 01-05- 01:58 AM               

Oh how I've wanted some standardization in this games plane packs. Unfortunatly unless you learn how to and do it your self it will never happen without hiring some experts.

For some reason this great commmunity rejects the Idea every time it comes up.

posted 01-05- 08:31 AM               

It's not a case of "not wanting"... It's a case of "If you want it volenteer".

It's all well and good to make the suggestion... however, as of date no one has volenteered to QA the entire PlanePack. (for the obvious reason that it'd a hellacious job)

posted 01-06- 01:14 PM               

Your point is a good one, but in practice it simply wouldn't work, myself I would probably say this is the best I can do, if you can improve it great, but I can't do anymore.. and I think most are the same, and thats why not all aircraft are as good as they should be, we build them so we atleast have them in the game, but most need touching up, nut it is a difficult task as Zur says.

~Nat~