Ogami Musashi

hey Han how are you? What is the reason for SU-27P? is there any improvement for air superiority in this variant or just for economical reasons?

nowadays this is not possible. you have to look at one thing in particular. in addition many simmers prefer having real number with coherent FM whiel some prefere having the more slightly effect modelized. Of course...idealy we could have both..well and then you could also have realistic graphics+realistic campains+avionics etc...this is the dream simulator.

there will be a special feature called "cooling" where you place the helo perpandiculary to the ground and you put your face near the screen and magic: it will cool you during hot days. All this magic due to AFM.^_^

you're right. that's why i talked about aerodynamics surfaces that ,them, are related to flight characterstics. Is Ka-50 AFM more complex than SU-25 one?

i think he was refering to mechanical and electrical systems like pitot tube sensors, flight commands etc..

AFM is not only avionics...it is physical model that means not only electro systems but also aeros surfaces.

hi olgerd, Well don't you think AFM by their structure permit more dynamics behaviors? I mean, for example, in Microsoft's Combat fligth simulator 2 landing gear were modelised separately from the rest of the plane. If something was going good in this simulator that was the landing/take off phases. The rest, modelised with tables, didn't render much but more negated the specificities of each plane. About aerodynamics well since control surface are modelised separately they really help to get the accurate aeros but as i recall the tuning necessary for SU-25 AFM ( for different altitude) you still need solid numbers to compare with the results of the AFM. I mean well if we dream of future simulation 20 years ahead, maybe we will use real time flow simulation that will accurately predict the flow behaviors thus specifications. But for now this is to demanding on CPU. That's why i think AFM are not necessary (i mean structuraly) a better way to accurates performance. But well i can be wrong, the AFM structure is quite complex...and i'm soooooooo unaware of many details. Well anyway, AFM are the way to go...especially SU-27 AFM^__^ (want it, want it!)

AFM are physical models. Instead of modelising whole plane performance, you modelise several subsystems specifications (like flight control systems, air probes, landing gear etc..) AFM require far more information about a plane but offer far more flexibility and real time coherence throught the entire enveloppe of the plane. With AFM you can modelise properly post stall aeros. As i said, the more complex the plane (for example unstable fighters like SU-27 and F-16), the harder and longer the AFM. In my humble opinion afm don't bring closer-to-reality specifications (values) but instead bring far more realistic behaviors. However it is possible to make AFM having correct numbers but then that's the big question: what do you prefer? realistic behaviors? or real numbers?(I.e: this radar has the same range than in real). For example Falcon 4 High fidelity Flight Models has pretty accurate curves (really accurate!) but some of the behaviors like for example coupled input commands (like roll+pitch, pitch+yaw, Roll+yaw) are missing in the code. I personnaly prefer AFM style FM, make the plane feel like really flying.

Hello, AFM require a lot of informations on a lot of system in the plane. The more complex the plane, the longer and the harder the AFM to make. So SU-27, F-15 and mig-29 AFM would require 1 year each to be completed. Thus, you see that making it for ALL planes would be an impossible work for a one shot release. While i'll deeply love SU-27 (SU-27P rocks) AFM, i have to admit that i prefer to see ED doing new planes, this is maybe more interesting. As talking about future implements, the new ED team is full of great people! Avionics are going to be better and better now thanks to new avionics programmers (one has a name that starts with Olg..) See you