Most realistic Flight Modelling ?

[A.S]

But I know what flight is like, I know what flying formation is like, I know what Fly-by-wire feels like, and I know Falcon 4 isn't it.

 

:megalol:

 

What you "feel" as real with 12000hours...is one part

What you dont feel but can proof (even though it feels "unrealistic" due to its accuracy in physics transfered to a 2D screen ) is another story.

 

I could go deeper how AF FM was modelled and by who...but let this be an open story for now....

 

Feel << that "Feeling" you can throw in a trashcan, even if that is the FIRST most important immersion on a screen..to judge on.

 

Somtimes this is also very fainted due to the "screen to stick conversion" (curves etc etc joystick etc etc) .ya even gFX and sound can set you off totally

(example: many say OF and AF FMs are totally different ..NO ITS NOT, but gfx, effects and sound makes you "feel" that way)

.you have to split the logic of how FMs are coded....then it will be pretty soon hollow on which skripts/codes "the idea" of flight-feeling is based on and made off.

 

Feeling is subjective ...MATH does not lie !!

 

Anyways... just my 2cents..... (My Hope is Fighterops... :smilewink:)

[leafer]

In F4, I can turn a complete circle without banking nor lose an inch of altitude by using only rudder. Rail flying at its best. Two plus two is four but it might not be the answer I'm looking for.

[SUBS17]

I could go deeper how AF FM was modelled and by who...but let this be an open story for now....

 

Feel << that "Feeling" you can throw in a trashcan, even if that is the FIRST most important immersion on a screen..to judge on.

 

Somtimes this is also very fainted due to the "screen to stick conversion" (curves etc etc joystick etc etc) .ya even gFX and sound can set you off totally

(example: many say OF and AF FMs are totally different ..NO ITS NOT, but gfx, effects and sound makes you "feel" that way)

.you have to split the logic of how FMs are coded....then it will be pretty soon hollow on which skripts/codes "the idea" of flight-feeling is based on and made off.

 

Feeling is subjective ...MATH does not lie !!

 

Anyways... just my 2cents..... (My Hope is Fighterops... :smilewink:)

 

Of and AFs FM are different although they are both modified from the original F4. While OFs uses HFFMs AF uses a modified version similar to HFFMs that incorporates different modes for refuelling, taxiing. Also its quite obvious the changes in AFs FM in the patches, after one of their early patches they added weight and momentum which differs from OF/RV/FF5 in that it effects the AoA more dramatically and this is obivious if you try to land with too much weight. The refuelling mode dampens throttle and the stick inputs(which it does IRL) and thats why refuelling is easiest in AF. (try it compared to RV and FF5 and you'll see the difference:smilewink:) Another good thing about F4s FM is the high G turns match that of the real F-16 also the departure modelling although scripted is unique from all other sims made so far. Some might say that its flying on rails compared to other sims but it still flys more like an F-16 than any other F-16 sim or FS addon. I have yet to see anything better.:thumbup:

[SUBS17]

In F4, I can turn a complete circle without banking nor lose an inch of altitude by using only rudder. Rail flying at its best. Two plus two is four but it might not be the answer I'm looking for.

 

Thats not the sims fault thats your fault for flying like a muppet.:lol: Yeah the yaw turns are worse to observe from behind a tanker although I never touch the rudder inflight unless I have battle damage. So far the best FBW FM goes to the VRS superhornet as it seems to fly the way it should in most aspects it would be nice to see that addon in a combat sim.

[GGTharos]

Feeling is subjective ...MATH does not lie !!

 

I have a math degree, and I beg to differ. :D

 

If you want to see a particularly malevolent and lying branch of mathematics, check out statistics :D

 

Finally, 'feeling' is part of the immersion. Even if there's an aircraft with a worse FM but better 'feeling', guess which most people will choose?

 

Finally, there have been inaccuracies in the F-16FM in AF/OF/whatever since the start, and you probably know of them. It's been a while for me though, so don't quote me ;)

[A.S]

In F4, I can turn a complete circle without banking nor lose an inch of altitude by using only rudder.

 

I wanna see that :music_whistling: (First of all you must be under 350kts to apply the rudders in any effective way - unlike Lockons´ supersonic full rudder deflections (yeah.. right rip me and them off ... lol) .....but then..... you do know that your FCS will "hold" you at alt ?

 

But i still want to see it - if possible - just curious

Edited July 6, 2009 by A.S

[A.S]

 

Finally, 'feeling' is part of the immersion. Even if there's an aircraft with a worse FM but better 'feeling', guess which most people will choose?

 

 

For a market and selling priorities focusing producer this is indeed a POINT :P ... sooo Over-Geniused ...wooooow gimme gimme

(offtopic and just came in my mind: have you ever considered measuring Lockons´ Bullets Ballitsitcs ( Rounds de- and accelartion Speeds/Curves and its impact on your Piper regarding G-Load? ..Do it please) :)

Edited July 6, 2009 by A.S

[DarkWanderer]

Silent Hunter. Submarines 100% realistically do not fly.

[A.S]

Of and AFs FM are different although they are both modified from the original F4. While OFs uses HFFMs AF uses a modified version similar to HFFMs that incorporates different modes for refuelling, taxiing. Also its quite obvious the changes in AFs FM in the patches, after one of their early patches they added weight and momentum which differs from OF/RV/FF5 in that it effects the AoA more dramatically and this is obivious if you try to land with too much weight. The refuelling mode dampens throttle and the stick inputs(which it does IRL) and thats why refuelling is easiest in AF. (try it compared to RV and FF5 and you'll see the difference:smilewink:) Another good thing about F4s FM is the high G turns match that of the real F-16 also the departure modelling although scripted is unique from all other sims made so far. Some might say that its flying on rails compared to other sims but it still flys more like an F-16 than any other F-16 sim or FS addon. I have yet to see anything better.:thumbup:

 

The modes for refueling and taxiing are secondary -lets say- but still interesting.

Although knowing that OF and FF are "tweak" or "mod" products (sometimes with wild implications) i would love to know more about weight and momentum. Can you go deeper in that, in comparsion to different verions?

 

But most important here is....do you have somehow proof or source that the "perfromcance graphs" in terms of flightmodel or -characteristics are crucial different?

 

Reason why i am asking is, because i am in touch with one of those guys who developed that whole thing in cooperation with engineers and Pilots and where you made me wonder already...i even pm-ed Mav-Jp also again to re-quest this ooold question.

Edited July 6, 2009 by A.S

[GGTharos]

For a market and selling priorities focusing producer this is indeed a POINT :P ... sooo Over-Geniused ...wooooow gimme gimme

 

(offtopic and just came in my mind: have you ever considered measuring Lockons´ Bullets Ballitsitcs ( Rounds de- and accelartion Speeds/Curves and its impact on your Piper regarding G-Load? ..Do it please) :)

 

Why would I bother? :P

LOFC bullets don't seem to decelerate, they're like lasers right now. Were you trying to show me something I didn't already know? ;)

[A.S]

Why would I bother? :P

LOFC bullets don't seem to decelerate, they're like lasers right now. Were you trying to show me something I didn't already know? ;)

 

It is offtopic i know..but its just came in my mind....(thought jumper) and HOW MUCH it changes BFM scenario...

 

You said master degree math....what are you doing...i never asked you actually.

[GGTharos]

It doesn't change it that much if you're shooting within 0.3nm.

 

It does if you want to 'snipe' obviously.

 

I can't really tell you what I do :P

[A.S]

:doh: KAOTWS ?

 

Btw: wrong modeled round-balistics and due to it the "drag" of your piper under G-loads in your HUD changes everything known in terms of attack geometry, terms like elbow, entry window...etc etc.... also at 0.3nm under certian situations. You know what i mean? It requires depth (mindwork) to model things right, same for FM....ok back to topic...we are drifting off... but you as "adviser" will hopefully consider pictures more wise ..wont you ;)

Edited July 6, 2009 by A.S

[A.S]

Of and AFs FM are different although they are both modified from the original F4. While OFs uses HFFMs AF uses a modified version similar to HFFMs that incorporates different modes for refuelling, taxiing. Also its quite obvious the changes in AFs FM in the patches, after one of their early patches they added weight and momentum which differs from OF/RV/FF5 in that it effects the AoA more dramatically and this is obivious if you try to land with too much weight. The refuelling mode dampens throttle and the stick inputs(which it does IRL) and thats why refuelling is easiest in AF. (try it compared to RV and FF5 and you'll see the difference:smilewink:) Another good thing about F4s FM is the high G turns match that of the real F-16 also the departure modelling although scripted is unique from all other sims made so far. Some might say that its flying on rails compared to other sims but it still flys more like an F-16 than any other F-16 sim or FS addon. I have yet to see anything better.:thumbup:

 

In addition to POST 34 (above)

 

I just got a reply (huh, that was quick) from Mav-Jp (HFFM Maker) .. Download here for all who dont know it: http://www.checksix-fr.com/downloads/falcon4/Topolo/zip/H-F-F-M-manual.pdf

 

quote:

 

According to ED (Lead Pursuit), AF are supposed to use the HFFM files...

 

However, OF has some features that AF hasn't especially the fuel consomption code (fuel consumption in AF is fantaisist) and the engine control code (spooling & RPM limitations for the different PW/GE engines)

 

Additionnaly i think ED used an earlier version of HFFM with some sligthly modified CDTEF and CLTEF factors that may provoke some differences during approach with LG.

 

JP

Edited July 6, 2009 by A.S

[SUBS17]

Actually I agree 100% with the above statement regarding the fuel consumption by MavJP he is quite correct the fuel burns much faster in OF than AF. Its a real pity these features couldn't be combined as they both increase the realism and the challenges when flying an F-16 particularly the dogfights as you cannot use the afterburner as much as you can in AF. I didn't know that LP used his HFFMs for AF but I do remember when they upgraded its FM in a patch as some of the features like the approach changed quite dramatically and you couldn't land overweight. I tried a few times with the max takeoff weight and there was quite a noticable difference. If there was one thing regarding the FM for Falcon that would make it better it would have to be the requirement for small trim inputs for after take off, after a weapon is released on one pylon and fuel balance. Thats aspects which VRS managed to model quite well for their superhornet on FS2004(not forgetting the pirouette:smilewink:). Another thing is wind and turbulence and wind and turbulence effects on weapons that would be getting quite close to the perfect FM.:pilotfly:

[GGTharos]

:doh: KAOTWS ?

 

Huh?

 

Btw: wrong modeled round-balistics and due to it the "drag" of your piper under G-loads in your HUD changes everything known in terms of attack geometry, terms like elbow, entry window...etc etc.... also at 0.3nm under certian situations. You know what i mean? It requires depth (mindwork) to model things right, same for FM....ok back to topic...we are drifting off... but you as "adviser" will hopefully consider pictures more wise ..wont you ;)

Sure, but it still doesn't affect me at those fighting distances ;)

At 0.3nm is next to 'same'.

 

I don't know WTH it would change your entry window, or where the elbow is - it really doesn't. If you're talking about people taking shots from places they shouldn't be able to, then heck yes, I agree - it's just that I don't play that way so I don't see it happen much.

 

It doesn't mean I'm not aware of the problems with the modeling as is - and ED is also. You'll notice DCS has quite enhanced ballistics for example - frankly I can't wait 'till DCS acquires an A2A fighter given all the things that DCS brings to the table.

[A.S]

yeah...we all wait...and hopefully...it will be nice stuff with DCS a2a.

 

(PS: you said, you cant say what you are really doing...and "KAOTWS" was a wild guess and has something to do with reverse-engineering :music_whistling:)

[leafer]

I wanna see that :music_whistling: (First of all you must be under 350kts to apply the rudders in any effective

 

Don't have F4 and F4:AF anymore. If you have those games then try it.

 

unlike Lockons´ supersonic full rudder deflections (yeah.. right rip me and them off ... lol)

 

Uh-huh

 

.....but then..... you do know that your FCS will "hold" you at alt ?

 

I asked when F4 first came out at a site where Chopstick Louie, and I think Pete as well, frequented and never gotten an answer. So if you've flown an F-16 then tell me if it does that IRL.

Edited July 7, 2009 by leafer

[SUBS17]

The modes for refueling and taxiing are secondary -lets say- but still interesting.

Although knowing that OF and FF are "tweak" or "mod" products (sometimes with wild implications) i would love to know more about weight and momentum. Can you go deeper in that, in comparsion to different verions?

 

 

You don't need a graph to work out the weight effect on the approach speed. The way to observe this is through the aircrafts AoA at approach speed(something that is quite well modeled on the FSX acceleration hornet). As you approach the runway with the gear down you'll see the AoA bracket inside the HUD will be at a much faster approach speed to a normal landing at average weight in F4AF. The weight is modeled by the aircrafts ground handling when you taxi as to how much brake is required to stop. This is better in F4AF than the other versions of F4 but not quite as good as the SU25 in FC which is more detailed and misuse can lead to flat tyres or broken NWS. If you compare it to FSX accelerations Hornet doing CarrierOps the limitations are even more strict in that you actually have to dump fuel even though you have no external stores in order to acheive the required AoA/approach speed to get the trap.(135Kts, >8deg AoA,>5000lbs fuel)

[SUBS17]

Don't have F4 and F4:AF anymore. If you have those games then try it.

 

 

 

Uh-huh

 

 

 

I asked when F4 first came out at a site where Chopstick Louie, and I think Pete as well, frequented and never gotten an answer. So if you've flown an F-16 then tell me if it does that IRL.

 

Haole might be the guy to ask on the Frugals forums or you can ask at the FO forums from what I recall it was mentioned somewhere they don't hardly use the rudder IRL as the FCS takes care of that.

[mikoyan]

There was a sim called A-10 Cuba and it had a very nice flight model, I was pretty similar to il-2, you could get into a tip stall or wing rock, I Don't know if that is what happens on the real jet if you pull to hard on the stick.