AI is on top of my list

[buddye]

Actually, good FM is a must for the AI, if the AI is subject to the same laws of physics as the player (which is a "must" in MHO).

It would be almost pointless to have well designed, tested and refined AI maneuvers/performance and have poor FM controlling the AI trying to fly the maneuvers.

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by buddye

Actually, good FM is a must for the AI, if the AI is subject to the same laws of physics as the player (which is a "must" in MHO).

It would be almost pointless to have well designed, tested and refined AI maneuvers/performance and have poor FM controlling the AI trying to fly the maneuvers.

Thats what i thought. don't they go hand in hand? You cant tell AI to behave a certain way in a FM that's incorrect or doesn't have the correct parameters?

[nearmiss]

The interesting ingredient missing in discussions of FM. So many people have their own ideas of what is a competent FM. Oleg had his idea and he was rebuffed many times by the community. Responding to a community of people, many of whom are pilots can have it's problems.

I mentioned the 1% flight models created by third parties for the MSFT CFS2. The spreadsheets that were created were a very good tool to plug the numbers and stats, then come up with what was called a 1% flight model. The spreadsheets were developed using actual flight model specifications from the aircraft manufacturer, which seemed adequate. Yet, the missing ingredient to all performance specs... Air combat required a new set of rules. Test pilots didn't take the aircraft to untried and unproven thresholds for failure. These failure points were determined by experience, not by test pilots pushing out to reasonable expectations of failure. So... there is that.

Those spreadsheets are still floating around, and probably attainable in many places.

I won't think to argue about their validity. I'll just say they put everyone on the same playing field.

[buddye]

I agree with nearmiss, the fist and most important issue in FM is to find and agree on the best A/C specs and then stick to the agreed to A/C specs unless a better more accurate spec is found and agreed to use.

Then the FM software uses the the A/C spec data. If you find a FM issue you can not assume it is the A/C spec data. The objective is to fly accurate FM (based mostly on pilot reports, test reports, and old problem reports) using many A/C specs with one integrated FM software package.

This is a very tough debugging and analysis problem and often results in player A/C flight opinions that almost all player have with certain A/C (roll rate, speed at specifixc altitudes, dive speed, climb speed, etc. etc.).

The hard working FM engineer must stick by his baseline A/C spec data and try and understand why the A/C is not performing based on old pilot reports and other old A/C testing/problem reports as many "expert Players" complain and give other spec referrences. The job of a FM engineer is never ending with alot of negitive feedback.

The AI is clearly dependent on the A/C FM with respect to AI quality and performance.

[oho]

AI is top issue now I agree.