|
|
|
|
#1
04-24-2011, 04:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I completely agree with csThor.
The main issue here is where reality stands. FM discussions are a very very difficult field, simply because sometimes you have people shouting at each other or throwing charts of dubious nature, and they probably don't even fly with the same controls' sensitivity. I don't mean to be an elitist, but you shouldn't even get close to talk on what a flight model should be like if you never put your arse on a plane and piloted it, and even in that case there are so many things to keep into account (limitations of the sim, unrealistic behaviour of AI etc..) As things are now I still think that the AI is way too jolly in its manouvres and reactions: the reality is that dogfights a la WW1 were not standard, in many cases it was all sorted in a single BnZ and pilots never knew what bounced them.. what we see here instead is the Red Arrows on Red Bulls making the craziest evasive manouvres or turning their planes into Shuttles and legging it.. But back to the original topic, no, I don't think "the community" has the required skills or experience to give an 100% reliable feedback on "what things should be like". 
|
|
#2
04-24-2011, 06:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'm more inclined to have faith in a professional software output than a sim developer opinion (and we know how he's easily influenced by some customer's opinions). @Eklund89: check PM
__________________
 A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria. Last edited by 6S.Manu; 04-24-2011 at 07:03 PM.
|
|
#3
04-24-2011, 07:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Even the use of data measured nowadays on warbirds can't be completely accurate, because the plane loadouts and setups are different than what they used to be back in the days. I can tell you what a modern P-51D flight envelope is like, but there will surely be some discrepancies with the data recorded in the 40s. I think the best way around this is developing a simulator that works the other way around, where physics are accurate and the sim does its calculations on airfoils, hp output, weight and other parametres.. but I'm afraid we will have to wait several years for something like that being available on a home pc.. Cloud computing might be the future of simulations, where one supercomputer does all the calculations and we just connect via terminals, but this is another story. I think that it's a bit premature to do any speculations for now, let's give the guys at Maddox at least 6 months and then we might think of an effective think tank, but until then I wouldn't put the horse before the cart and limit feedback to bug reports.
|
|
#4
04-24-2011, 07:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And more the majority of guys who fled that planes in that days didn't know the limits of their airplane since they were scared to try things that are normal for us virtual pilots (immortals). Listening to our grandfathers we have bold statement on warbirds' performance that can't be trusted since it's physically impossible. Because of this I think that the only way to have real performance is by these softwares: probably not 100% accurate but physical science don't lie. Quote:
@TomcatViP: not "Prof Sim Software" but "Professional Aeronautical Software". One of the software used to design and test a plane on the paper before you start to build it.
__________________
A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria.
|
|
#5
04-24-2011, 08:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
LoL I did copy tht.
No shame to say the word SIM : Simulation where created by scientist and mathematicians and still hve both a prof bckgrd and some scientific meanings  I will even say that nowadays sim is the first layer of industrial reality  Whaaaaooo shld memorized this one for my next product review unless I'm actually quoting one of my ex  
Last edited by TomcatViP; 04-24-2011 at 08:53 PM.
|
|
#6
04-25-2011, 03:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
I personally can't wait for the Mediterranean expansion!
|
|
#7
04-25-2011, 05:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
For the inside components' performance instead we still need historical data (engine, radiators ect are different things). So we should complain about Overheat times, Guns' efficency ect, but not about things like max speed, climbing rate, acceleration ect.
__________________
A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria.
|
|
#8
04-24-2011, 07:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
if CNbr->0 then DeltaFM->0 wehre CNbr stand for the number of potential customer DeltaFM : the average difference with the real expected value Not to mention the asymptotic convergence Anyway we should be really satisfied of what we've just got here with CoD and helps dev team not to be over influenced by baized comments Hummm ... Prof Sim Software you said 
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
