Spin characteristic prop planes in DCS or rather spin proof.

[Pilum]

It is not that it more valid, the question is what do you want to do with the information?

 

The first report I posted is a mathmatical description of propeller effects on stability. It provides the big picture using a very common and accepted propeller theory. It is not a adoption of helicopter theory either, it is made to model the behaviors of a Constant Speed Propeller on a single engined aircraft.

 

The second report I posted is a mathmatical microscope looking at a very specific and narrow portion of the aircraft behaviors. It simply illustrates the fact propeller effects on the longitudinal axis are not really a factor except for very low velocity just above the stall.

 

It is a mathmatical microscope like the next reports posted in the thread.

 

Unlike the first reports, the preceding reports are not a simple system that describes the propellers effect on the overall aircraft behaviors nor do they even present complete information on propeller effects on stability.

 

All of the reports accurately describe aircraft behavior within the intended scope. The question becomes how much time and computing power one wants to use to get the same result.

 

Of course, that is not even considering the fact only two small areas of effect are described in the other reports given. In otherwords, we need a few more reports and a lot more information!!

 

Make sense now?

 

Yes Crumpp, I think I get the "essence" of what you are saying and like Colonel Mandrake would have put it, it's all beginning to make sense to me now......

[Crumpp]

Here is another propeller report to add to the discussion! :smartass:

 

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1953/naca-tm-1355.pdf

Edited February 22, 2015 by sobek

[MiloMorai]

If the NACA report is useless then why post the link?

 

Last edited by Crumpp; 02-21-2015 at 11:11 PM. Reason: added another useless NACA report

[IIIJG52_Otto_]

It's in beta stage in some areas still, so in spin too.

 

Be patient please. :)

 

These things happen for start building the house from the roof instead of for he foundation.

And I think that the foundations of a warbird in a simulator are its flight characteristics, much more important than clicking little buttons on a panel (useless in the middle of a fight), ..or flare pistol (very nice but not very useful), .

 

I think I speak for everyone when I say that virtual pilots have a lot off patience, and we are supporting DCS, by buying expensive and incomplete airplanes.

I think it is very important that you change your development priority, improving flight model & ballistic in first place as soon as possible, before the frills.

 

 

For the fighter aircrafts, the spin tendency and Spin recovering capability, was a very important feature, in dogfight combat of WWII.

It is documented in history books and flight tests, that putting the aircraft into a spin and recover it later, could be a useful evasive maneuver in certain combat situations, specially if the enemy chasing you, had worse characteristics to recover spins.

 

An example was the battle between Bf-109 and Hurricane in BoB . The Hurricane had very poor ability to recover spins, it needed 6 full turns as minimum, while a Bf-109 could be recover spins in less than 3 turns, according the chronicles of some Spanish and Germans pilots.

Edited February 22, 2015 by III/JG52_Otto_+

[Kwiatek]

eeeee tales, warbirds don't want to spin at all :)

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

These things happen for start building the house from the roof instead of for he foundation.

And I think that the foundations of a warbird in a simulator are its flight characteristics, much more important than clicking little buttons on a panel (useless in the middle of a fight), ..or flare pistol (very nice but not very useful), .

 

I think I speak for everyone when I say that virtual pilots have a lot off patience, and we are supporting DCS, by buying expensive and incomplete airplanes.

I think it is very important that you change your development priority, improving flight model & ballistic in first place as soon as possible, before the frills.

 

 

For the fighter aircrafts, the spin tendency and Spin recovering capability, was a very important feature, in dogfight combat of WWII.

It is documented in history books and flight tests, that putting the aircraft into a spin and recover it later, could be a useful evasive maneuver in certain combat situations, specially if the enemy chasing you, had worse characteristics to recover spins.

 

An example was the battle between Bf-109 and Hurricane in BoB . The Hurricane had very poor ability to recover spins, it needed 6 full turns as minimum, while a Bf-109 could be recover spins in less than 3 turns, according the chronicles of some Spanish and Germans pilots.

 

While I understand your point, I don't think that you have a point when you suggest that indeed DCS is already based on a quite sophisticated flight and overall physics model.

 

The fact that I don't make the slightest idea about how it is implemented doesn't mean I can't easily recognize that I am using rather detailed and complex flight models. The overall feel of the various models, ww2, modern fighters and even helicopters is probably the best available for ** any ** flightsim, although I honestly prefer Il2 BoS right now because it gives me the sensation I can't get in DCS for not owning a FF joystick... But when it comes to play helicopters, I wouldn't think of starting any other PC sim than DCS. If I want to simulate modern air war, the A10, FC3 fighters or even the Mig21... and I'm eager to try my chance in the F86 as soon as EDGE becomes available :-)

 

Then, although I don't know if he is involved in all of the Projects, Dimitry ( Yo-Yo ) is someone who we have to be grateful to have in the design, testing and fine tuning of our ww2 add-ons. He has had the chance to show us all how dedicated to the cause his work is, but above all, how meticulous and competent he is when it comes to flight dynamics, engine modeling, weapon modeling... Now, Yo-Yo is one guy working at the same time in all of these and some of the upcoming projects... So, he's human after all, just like you an me Otto....

 

Now, a complex flight dynamics model, because it really allows to model details that are unique to each aircraft, takes a lot of time and effort to fine-tune, and that's what we actually pay for when we buy a Bf109 K4, a Fw190, a P51d... in beta.... We get a model that is already very good, probably requiring fine-tuning of some details on it's flight, engine, weapons, damage models.

 

I don't know much about combat flightsims, although I have had the chance to use CloD, very recently (excellent flightsim too, specially thanks to the TF patches! ), the original il2 by Oleg, Rise of Flight, and became a true fan of il2-BoS, but it looks to me that the experience gained from previous projects, in which probably some of the DCS, BOS, ROF and even WT, team members belonged in the past, is certainly paying because both BOS and DCS are, IMO as someone who admires in the very first place the flight models, converging towards what I think are two of the best ever flightsims!

Edited February 22, 2015 by jcomm

[sobek]

I think it is very important that you change your development priority, improving flight model & ballistic in first place as soon as possible, before the frills.

 

Dimitry is not involved in most of the avionics development. Telling the guys from that department to hold off does nothing to speed up the development of FMs. This has nothing to do with priority, it is simply a reality of the project.

[Solty]

Dimitry is not involved in most of the avionics development. Telling the guys from that department to hold off does nothing to speed up the development of FMs. This has nothing to do with priority, it is simply a reality of the project.

Even if so, the FM should always be the highest priority followed by DM and balistics. I agree with Otto that it takes realy long time and it realy seems like the clickable cockpit is overshadowing the whole "feeling" of an aircraft. Good flight sim must be faithful in recreation of flight dynamics and combat situations. The rest doesn't matter as much.:pilotfly:

 

Don't get me wrong. I realy like how DCS handles clickable cockpits. It is realy good design choice and I realy like it. It works close to perfect, but the rest moves way slower than it should, at least IMHO. MiG21 was patched fairly quickly and extensive patch notes were given. The 109 is still waiting...

 

EDIT: I have no idea how it works internally within ED, but that is just how I feel.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Solty

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Do you really think that all there is to ww2 birds in dcs are the clickabkle cockpits ?

 

I can't, even by far, agree with such a statement... sorry...

 

Even if I am critic, I am critic knowing that still what is being offered right now is way ahead of anything I have experienced in any flightsim, so far...

[IIIJG52_Otto_]

Do you really think that all there is to ww2 birds in dcs are the clickabkle cockpits ?

 

I can't, even by far, agree with such a statement... sorry...

 

Even if I am critic, I am critic knowing that still what is being offered right now is way ahead of anything I have experienced in any flightsim, so far...

 

The FM of DCS warbirds "is way ahead of anything" ??? are you sure??

Is possible to do aerobatic with a P-51 full fuel and external tanks??

 

 

If I remember correctly, .. these things could not do so in the IL2-1946

Edited February 22, 2015 by III/JG52_Otto_+

[TAGERT]

The FM of DCS warbirds "is way ahead of anything" ??? are you sure??

The only thing I am sure about is until the game provides a way to log data during flight, as 1C did in IL-2 with DeviceLink, or as 1C did in CoD with C#, no one can say with any certainty how well the planes are matching the real world data. Just too many potential sim pilot errors can be made during testing that can corrupt the results.

 

This statement is based on the hundreds of test logs I have reviewed over the past 10+ from several different flight sim. I found that most of the errors were in the way the user performed the in-game test, and not an actual error in the FM. For example, not taking into account the difference in the in-game atmosphere and the real world data, which is typically corrected/converted to standard atmosphere, but not always! Another example, in WWII some countries the beginning of a rate of climb test started from a dead stop on the runway, where as others the beginning of a rate of climb test started with the plane air born at a low altitude. Not a big impact on the rate of climb data, but it does affect the time to climb results. Little difference like that can have a big effect on the results.

 

So, until we have a way to log the in-game data, any and all in-game testing should be taken with a grain of salt. As a bare minimum a video should be recorded during the test so others can review the methods used during testing.

 

On a related note, Combat Pilot Accounts..

 

Combat Pilot Accounts are great source for information on the planes flying qualities of a plane, like ground handling, the sounds it makes when you do this, the vibrations you feel when you do that..

 

But..

 

Combat Pilot Accounts are worthless sources for information on the planes performance!

 

Reason being combat pilot accounts are typically one sided stories that says more about the pilot vs pilot skill than plane v.s. plane performance.. That and the combat pilot accounts typically do not contain enough information to recreate the scenario in-game to see if you can obtain the same results, let alone the other planes state.. Than there is the human factor, with regards to pilot accounts years after the fact, the simply truth is memories change and are lost or become inaccurate over a period of time. And like the old fisherman telling us about the 'big one' that got away, they tend to embellish the facts over time, that is to say the fish gets bigger each time the story is told. That is just human nature found in us all... For example, take Brian Williams recent snafu!

 

For example, for every German pilot combat account of his Bf109 being able to out turn a Spitfire, their is a British pilot combat account of his Spitfire being able to out turn a Bf109..

 

Yet to this day people still think some sort of statistical average can be gleamed from pilot accounts.. But that is a pipe dream IMHO, for so many reasons, but probably the most important reason being, you never get a chance to read the after action report from the pilots that were killed in action! ;)

[SlipBall]

The only thing I am sure about is until the game provides a way to log data during flight, as 1C did in IL-2 with DeviceLink, or as 1C did in CoD with C#, no one can say with any certainty how well the planes are matching the real world data. Just too many potential sim pilot errors can be made during testing that can corrupt the results.

 

This statement is based on the hundreds of test logs I have reviewed over the past 10+ from several different flight sim. I found that most of the errors were in the way the user performed the in-game test, and not an actual error in the FM. For example, not taking into account the difference in the in-game atmosphere and the real world data, which is typically corrected/converted to standard atmosphere, but not always! Another example, in WWII some countries the beginning of a rate of climb test started from a dead stop on the runway, where as others the beginning of a rate of climb test started with the plane air born at a low altitude. Not a big impact on the rate of climb data, but it does affect the time to climb results. Little difference like that can have a big effect on the results.

 

So, until we have a way to log the in-game data, any and all in-game testing should be taken with a grain of salt. As a bare minimum a video should be recorded during the test so others can review the methods used during testing.

 

On a related note, Combat Pilot Accounts..

 

Combat Pilot Accounts are great source for information on the planes flying qualities of a plane, like ground handling, the sounds it makes when you do this, the vibrations you feel when you do that..

 

But..

 

Combat Pilot Accounts are worthless sources for information on the planes performance!

 

Reason being combat pilot accounts are typically one sided stories that says more about the pilot vs pilot skill than plane v.s. plane performance.. That and the combat pilot accounts typically do not contain enough information to recreate the scenario in-game to see if you can obtain the same results, let alone the other planes state.. Than there is the human factor, with regards to pilot accounts years after the fact, the simply truth is memories change and are lost or become inaccurate over a period of time. And like the old fisherman telling us about the 'big one' that got away, they tend to embellish the facts over time, that is to say the fish gets bigger each time the story is told. That is just human nature found in us all... For example, take Brian Williams recent snafu!

 

For example, for every German pilot combat account of his Bf109 being able to out turn a Spitfire, their is a British pilot combat account of his Spitfire being able to out turn a Bf109..

 

Yet to this day people still think some sort of statistical average can be gleamed from pilot accounts.. But that is a pipe dream IMHO, for so many reasons, but probably the most important reason being, you never get a chance to read the after action report from the pilots that were killed in action! ;)

 

 

so true, :thumbup:

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

The FM of DCS warbirds "is way ahead of anything" ??? are you sure??

Is possible to do aerobatic with a P-51 full fuel and external tanks??

 

 

If I remember correctly, .. these things could not do so in the IL2-1946

 

Are you sure that guy didn't record his movie in "Game Flightmodel" ?

[WinterH]

WW II aircraft performance discussions... closest thing you can get in a sim forum to a religion or politics related discussion...

 

Anyway... while I agree that many DCS aircraft's flight model has "huh?!" moments, it is difficult to quantify our "huh?" into something scientifically meaningful, and even with those DCS tends to be, in my experience the best and most believable with it's flight models compared to all things before. Inaccuracies in a personal computer physics/flight sim is inevitable in the end.

 

Don't get me wrong though, I am not saying every flight model is fine and there's no need to touch them further. That's just my opinion about comparisons to flight models in other sims. And, if we really nitpick about feature comparisons between sims, I'd prefer DCS handle damage model better than it currently does, rather than flight models.

[TAGERT]

WW II aircraft performance discussions... closest thing you can get in a sim forum to a religion or politics related discussion...

True Dat! ;)

 

Anyway... while I agree that many DCS aircraft's flight model has "huh?!" moments, it is difficult to quantify our "huh?"

Exactly!

 

That and the "huh" typically has more to do with the sim pilots 'expectations' than an indication of a FM error. For example, Johnny has read all sorts of books from all sorts of WWII pilots stories.. And in most if not all of those stories the WWII pilot airplane bested the enemies airplane.. Therefore Johnny concludes that 'he' should be able to fly the same in-game airplane that the WWII pilot was flying and also be able to best the same in-game enemies airplane. And when that does NOT happen and Johnny gets shot down by the enemies airplane.. Does Johnny take pause and admit to himself that the other pilot was simply better than he was? Nope! Must be a bug in the FM! ;)

[sobek]

Even if so, the FM should always be the highest priority followed by DM and balistics. I agree with Otto that it takes realy long time and it realy seems like the clickable cockpit is overshadowing the whole "feeling" of an aircraft. Good flight sim must be faithful in recreation of flight dynamics and combat situations. The rest doesn't matter as much.

 

Well, if you do not like to fly a beta FM, i fear there's nothing anyone can do than tell you to hold off until the respective module is out of beta. EDs project priorities really are none of our business.

[Solty]

True Dat! ;)

 

 

Exactly!

 

That and the "huh" typically has more to do with the sim pilots 'expectations' than an indication of a FM error. For example, Johnny has read all sorts of books from all sorts of WWII pilots stories.. And in most if not all of those stories the WWII pilot airplane bested the enemies airplane.. Therefore Johnny concludes that 'he' should be able to fly the same in-game airplane that the WWII pilot was flying and also be able to best the same in-game enemies airplane. And when that does NOT happen and Johnny gets shot down by the enemies airplane.. Does Johnny take pause and admit to himself that the other pilot was simply better than he was? Nope! Must be a bug in the FM! ;)

We are not comparing planes here now, nor are we looking for "OP" behaviour, but the true to RL behaviour of those airplanes.

 

Every plane can enter a spin. So in a simulator the spin should also be achievable and modeled to look and feel as close to real thing possible. Nobody wants to go for a stick measuring contests here. Planes have their own flight characteristics and to have a good simulation we need to get as close as possible to reproduce those characteristics. Not only DCS. Every simulator game.

 

Otherwise we can stay at level of old IL2 46 or even go lower than that. Who needs spins, snap rolls, stalls right? Well... we need, as we are "virtual pilots".:smartass::joystick: And you probably agree with me at this point right?

 

Or we can already move to this game and be happy:music_whistling::

 

EDIT: Don't get me wrong. I am not saying it will ever be like the real thing. But I am sure the current behaviour of planes can be improved. We all just want a very accurate simulation. I have heard many times that DCS is a study simulation, I want to experience that fully.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Solty

[TAGERT]

Based off you quoting what I said, I can only assume you were talking to me..

 

But after reading what you wrote, I don't see anything you said that agrees with or disagrees with what I said, so, I will just assume you were talking at me and not with me.

 

There is one thing you said that I would like to comment on, where you said

 

But I am sure the current behaviour of planes can be improved.

 

There is always room for improvement!

 

But one thing we have to keep in mind is that.. No flight simulation ever was, is, or will be perfect! Hence the title 'simulation of flight' as opposed to just 'flight'.

[Solty]

Based off you quoting what I said, I can only assume you were talking to me..

 

But after reading what you wrote, I don't see anything you said that agrees with or disagrees with what I said, so, I will just assume you were talking at me and not with me.

 

There is one thing you said that I would like to comment on, where you said

 

 

 

There is always room for improvement!

 

But one thing we have to keep in mind is that.. No flight simulation ever was, is, or will be perfect! Hence the title 'simulation of flight' as opposed to just 'flight'.

Well, your whole post was about people assuming that FMs have errors just because they don't know how to fly. Your whole post leads to this one culminative sentence.

Does Johnny take pause and admit to himself that the other pilot was simply better than he was? Nope! Must be a bug in the FM!

While this thread is focusing on representation of IRL flight characteristics in DCS.

 

I don't want to argue with you. I am just saying that you are assuming that people who see problems with Flight Models must not have the competence to do so. I find that too generalised and quite offensive.

 

I hope that is more clear now.:)

Edited February 22, 2015 by Solty

[TAGERT]

Well, your whole post was about people assuming that FMs have errors just because they don't know how to fly.

Agreed my last and previous post points out that most so called FM errors are not FM errors at all but simply an error in the users understanding and/or testing of the in-game plane.

 

Your whole post leads to this one culminative sentence.

Agreed, I gave an example of how alot of sim pilots blame the FM for their inability to look in the mirror and admit there are better sim pilots out there.

 

But as I pointed out, that is only one of the reason the FM gets blamed for having errors.

 

While this thread is focusing on representation of IRL flight characteristics in DCS.

So, your saying this thread has nothing to do aircraft performance and is only about aircraft flying qualities?

 

Assuming that is the case, I don't see how that changes anything I said, in that as I have read here, some seem to think the Bf109 is incapable of spinning, which is pretty silly IMHO, and therefore more of a FM issue than a qualities issue.

 

I don't want to argue with you.

Nor I with you, but at the same time posting an exchange of ideas and clarification of what was said and meant should not be equated to arguing.

 

I am just saying that you are assuming that people who see problems with Flight Models must not have the competence to do so.

Yes, that is the case in most cases

 

I find that too generalised

That is your opinion and your welcome to it, but, as I noted I make this stamtent based on 10+ years of reviewing peoples log file test of flight simuations.

 

and quite offensive.

Really?

 

I don't see how you could be offended?

 

Unless my Johnny analogy shoe fits you?

 

Please expand/explain what it was I said that offended you!

 

I hope that is more clear now.:)

Getting there

Edited February 22, 2015 by TAGERT

[Crumpp]

While this thread is focusing on representation of IRL flight characteristics in DCS.

 

Exactly.

 

Yo-Yo is working to make the propeller effects more realistic. It was pretty good before but this represents ongoing effort to improve the FM.

 

Instead of being encouraged as the community should be with the knowledge folks who do know what they are doing are working to improve things, members want to pick it apart focusing on some perceived failure which is really just a part of progress leading to improvement.

 

As he says on page two....be patient.

[Crumpp]

That is your opinion and your welcome to it, but, as I noted I make this stamtent based on 10+ years of reviewing peoples log file test of flight simuations.

 

You should put your application in for Mesa or some of the other regional airlines! They will make you a street captain based on that experience.

 

:doh:

[TAGERT]

You should put your application in for Mesa or some of the other regional airlines!

Enh, most pilots don't get paid enough, maybe someday, but right now I could not afford the pay cut

Edited February 22, 2015 by TAGERT

[Crumpp]

I have read here, some seem to think the Bf109 is incapable of spinning,

 

Quotes....in context....please?

[Friedrich-4B]

It is not that it more valid, the question is what do you want to do with the information?..

All of the reports accurately describe aircraft behavior within the intended scope. The question becomes how much time and computing power one wants to use to get the same result.

 

It should be obvious that these NACA reports also have intrinsic historical value, regardless of whatever value ED's developer's may find in them (no doubt, as Yo Yo has indicated, they have more than enough relevant, current information to replicate propeller & slipstream effects), and that other forum members might find them interesting, if not useful. I'll continue to post such documents and let the forum decide. :smilewink:

Edited February 23, 2015 by Friedrich-4/B