a little bad news on flightmodels.

[TPN_Bard 0]

LOMAC will not include the complex flightmodels that have been in development as they are too time consuming to debug.

[Inferno 0]

A little? That's a HUGE let down for me. Why can't they include the advanced FM's later on? :thumbdown: :(

 

Damn you Ubi! :x

[Kedas 0]

It isn't officially confirmed yet

They will probably do something but not that bad.

[SDirickson 0]

Bard, if they are seriously going to remove complex flight models, well, they're gonna lose a lot of business.

 

I hope its not true.

[Inferno 0]

Well, at most they will revert back to the FM of Flanker2. Which is pretty good, but still, I was looking forward to the new FM.

[Hogpen13 0]

I've asked for someone from UBI to please post something on the LOMAC forums...all we can do is wait.....

[Kedas 0]

http://oldsite.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimateb...c;f=37;t=001127

(read Igor Tishin messages)

if I read this then it is more like the approach of making the FM is the same as the old one and not like the new one that is based on more data.

 

So each plane has his own flight model only the new approach isn't used to make it. right?

[MadJeff 3]

Full quote from Igor Tishin on the situation:

 

Dear Sirs

Let me put some light to this subject.

 

We are always working on improvement of Flanker(LockOn) FM and we have two approaches.

First is based on the existing concept which uses few but very complicated dependencies, requires relatively small number of initial data. This approach is a very good since it was developed in a way that it can be improved any time we get more information. It is very convenient in situation, when whole product is complicated and we need to develop many aspects of it at the same time. We are using this approach in LockOn, improving flight models of all flyable planes as soon as we get the new information.  

 

The second approach is an attemption to use much more aerodynamics data with bigger set of equations. This approach is normally used for professional simulators and it requires a lot of suphisticated initial official data. As soon as we got such data for one russian airplane we tryed that approach as well, but unfortunately found out that official initial data very rare suite to each other, in other words, that approach needs a lot of work to preprocess the initial data with no guarantee, that result is good. As a result for one year of work a very first tryal version of one airpalane was developed, but was not tested enough, and even nobody could say yet is it better than FM developed by old approach or even worse. So, not everithing what is complicated necessarily better . Very often genius is in simplicity. But we continue working to provide you with the best of what is only possible on PC.

 

So it looks to me like it is a false alarm, as I figured it was. All I know is it's fun as hell to fly!

[Hogpen13 0]

You know MJ I think UBI and Eagle should just clam-up and stop all screenshots, movies, and everything else until release...the community is getting like a pack of wild dogs!! :(

[TPN_Bard 0]

thats why i think it is a little bad news.

 

the f2 flight models didn't feel too bad.

 

My only remaining question is if the a-10, su-25 and f-15 are going to have simplified models of their own.

 

simplified models should have one good effect - less CPU processing needed which can be shunted to other stuff.

[MadJeff 3]

I agree. The Ubi forums have been downright ugly lately, with so many people claiming 'entitlement' of everything, from no-time demos to perfect flight models. It's a wonder any dev makes any statement to this community at all at this point. :(

[MadJeff 3]

Just to put the final nail in this coffin, here's a quote from Wags himself:

 

No, none of the previews were written with the version including the changed A-10A FM. There was only ONE build with this and it was practically unflyable.

 

As to the Lock On FMs being dumbed down, this is complete hog-wash.

 

-Matt

 

Nuff said, next on the agenda... :D

[Inferno 0]

Err, I stand corrected....*runs away*

[MadJeff 3]

:D

[TPN_Bard 0]

so what does this all mean anyway?

 

I know one of the big blurbs was that LOMAC was going to have a fully dynamic flight model and how it would be superior to table based stuff (that people keep saying is how falcon4sp3 does it).

 

I'm not a flight model guy and don't know much about the f2.5 fm's, but are there other sims out there that use the same approach that lomac will?

 

I see people refer to "tabled" flight models because they use data, and have said that they are inferior - i can't see HOW you'd make a flight model without a data table. Obviously i must be missing something :)

 

Can anyone give me a quick rundown on the common approaches to FM?

[Inferno 0]

I don't think anyone has said that because LOMAC is not supposed to be table based it will be superior to F4? Why most think that Flanker2.5 has superior FM to F4sP# is nto necessarily hard data, but the "feel" of the sim which many real pilots have said is pretty close to the real thing. Especially, the modeling of inertia seems very realistic.

 

Most sims use a hybrid combination of table based data and some real time formulas. F4 and Flanker 2.5 use this combo I think. Some sims use only table based numbers. The problem with that is that while you may get accurate FM, you cannot really capture the feel without some fine tuning and fudging of the numbers.

 

The only current sim that I know of that uses (I think) almost all real time formulas is IL2 Sturmovick, which has excellent FM's. But even IL2 has to use table based data for some hard to do calculations.

 

So, apparently ED tried to do a more formula based FM, but failed, which is no biggie, since if F2.5's FM is anything to go by, LOMAC's FM will be the best in the "feel" department.

[Inferno 0]

To add, the cool thing with formula based dynamic FM's is that they model some pretty advanced real time physics and using those laws of physics aircraft performance is determined. But of course, it is not possible to completely reproduce the laws of physics in real time on your home PC, so some short cuts have to be taken.

 

Lastly, I don't think anyone will be disappointed by LOMAC's FM, if they follow the standard that Flanker set. This is a non issue that was blown out of proportion due to a debatable translation of the original post in Russian.

[Yojimbo 0]

i don't think any1 can comment on Fligh Models unless, they've a) flown the plane irl and B) flown the computer model in LOMAC...

[TPN_Bard 0]

sure they can, but it depends on what is being discussed. It does NOT take first hand knowledge to know if a flight model is wrong - that's where physics comes in ;)

 

The only advantage someone who has flown the plane before has is that they can say it "feels" right. Everything else comes down to scientific data.

[Yojimbo 0]

well they have a load of peeps from the various aircraft helping them out right?

 

so all should b fine :)

[Inferno 0]

This truly a soap opera of conflicting personalities, rather then any genuine flight modeling issues.

 

Looks like some guy and his friends were told to make a dynamic flight model, but they could not deliver in time, so they are creating rumors to discredit ED.

[Hogpen13 0]

This truly a soap opera of conflicting personalities, rather then any genuine flight modeling issues.

 

Looks like some guy and his friends were told to make a dynamic flight model, but they could not deliver in time, so they are creating rumors to discredit ED.

 

It's sour grapes spilling over because they have been baned everywhere else so they come to the english forums to contune they crusade! :roll:

[Vex 0]

Thanks Jeff! Alway can rely on you for the "real" scoop. It was yet another rumor that was getting out

of hand. Wait until I start the one about Elvis programed Flanker1.0 :shock:

 

 

 

Vex