I know I know a Flight Model question

[+quack74 329]

I have downloaded all the flight model patches. But hardly any of my planes fly right. Even my Fokker Dr1 flight characteristics have changed. There are soo many awsome planes in this game but only a third of them work right. When is this going to be fixed. I mean really fixed. In a patch. Because it reall kills this game. I'm tired of constantly fixing things. I hardly ever get to play. My S.E.5a still flies sidways, and others still have severe stalls and crash. And others have horrible rudder control. Including my favorite Dr.1. I have installed all the new flight models but they dont change much. And all the bombers fly as fast as the fighters. Cant even catch up to them. Some two seaters are more manuverable than the fighters. Sorry to complain, but the game needs lots of work if its to get more players I think. I understand people are putting their own time into this game. Cheers to them all. I just think this game has soo much potential. It's just all over the place right now. Too many things to fix. we need a GOOD patch!

I would like to skin other planes. But I cant use them. Sorry to bitch. I hate to see a good game with so many problems. You dont see to many good WWI simms out there. This one could be one of the best.

[deep 5]

If you mean Peter01's flight models, they are only meant for the Unpatched Expansion Pack - October 2007.

[Heck 496]

I was very hesitant about posting a reply here, because this subject is so touchy, but I think the basic problem that TK has with WW1 flight models is us, the WW1 flight simmers. We are a very opinionated group, and I don't think many will disagree with that statement, although it seems a little odd that people should have such strong opinions about aircraft where we have so little empirical data available, and the empirical data available was collected with instrumentation that can only be described as archane. We are basing our reactions to this flight sim on opinions and statements we have read from pilots of the time in most cases, and sorry few opinions at that, but modern pilots flying accurate reproductions (and I mean by accurate, aircraft like Dick Day's Camel at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome, which was built from original drawings, and flew with a rebuilt original Clerget) have a completely different take on these planes than we do. I've never seen anyone here mention Frank Tallman's wonderful book, "Flying the Old Planes." But in the forward to that book, an author mentions that although some of these aircraft's climb rates would equal a modern Cessna of similar power, everything else in a WW1 dogfight took place at the pace of a "dreamy ballet." I've read modern pilots who've flown these aircraft say that what was referred to as a roll during WW1 was actually a flick roll, where the pilot intentionally stalled his plane, and then kicked the rudder to make it roll, because these modern pilots were unable to get them to do an aileron, or slow roll. Compared to the way even modern light planes fly, they had terrible flight characteristics, because they had sloppy, inefficient, flight controls, and sloppy, inefficient airfoils for the most part. The Fokker D-VII had the most modern airfoil shape of just about any WW1 fighter, but even that airfoil was similar to one from the 1920's, not the 1930's. But, at the time, pilots felt that some of these planes handled like a dream, because that's all they knew. Today, the best of them would be considered an aircraft you'd avoid flying if you had a choice.

 

And even at the time, opinions of the most famous of them varied. It wasn't just the Camel that was loved, or hated by the pilots who flew it. Number 24 Squadron was apparently so incensed with their SE-5a's handling that they had their fitters and riggers reduce the dihedral to make them more manuverable. And very few pilots actually like that Lewis Gun, because you were trying to manhandle a 28 pound machine gun in a one hundred mile an hour slipstream. Fine idea that.

 

I guess the upshot of this long rant is that when it comes to flight models, it's all just opinions in the end. And I've always found TK's opinions to be just as valid as any of ours, because at least TK's trying to work within the laws of the aerodynamics he's presented in the sim. And the only criticism I have of the post patch flight models is that now, to me, they roll too quickly, based on what I've read over the past thirty years, but I realize that that may differ from what others have read over the course of their lives, so I'll just happily dig into those data.ini's and change those roll rates, now that Wild_Elmo has explained to me what aerodynamic coefficient does what. I don't think anyone will ever come up with a patch that corrects things, so to speak, because the opinions here are so strong, and based on so little real information.

[+quack74 329]

Thanks for the response Heck. I completely understand the problems and challenges in creating tese flight models. I really was talking about the glitchy actions of the aircraft. unresponsive rudder controls, harrible stalls that cause the plane to drop out of the sky sideways, big bombers flying at 90mph, need for fixing (manually) weapons configs for bombers, etc, etc. I'm just comlaining about all the faults. Things that dont have anything to do w research. things that are from bad programing. I uderstand it's not easy. I just think if this is to be a great game someone needs to come up w a good patch. With all the updates and expansion packs. Get it all together so everyone can be on the same page.

[Bandy 3]

... so I'll just happily dig into those data.ini's and change those roll rates, now that Wild_Elmo has explained to me what aerodynamic coefficient does what.

 

Sounds intriguing... I'm out of the loop I guess, please share if/where this may be available???

 

A search for Wild_Elmo at CA pulls the user name out of the list, but zero thread/post results or broken links.

Edited December 10, 2008 by B Bandy RFC

[Guest Stiglr]

I was very hesitant about posting a reply here, because this subject is so touchy, but I think the basic problem that TK has with WW1 flight models is us, the WW1 flight simmers. We are a very opinionated group, and I don't think many will disagree with that statement, although it seems a little odd that people should have such strong opinions about aircraft where we have so little empirical data available, and the empirical data available was collected with instrumentation that can only be described as archane. We are basing our reactions to this flight sim on opinions and statements we have read from pilots of the time in most cases, and sorry few opinions at that, but modern pilots flying accurate reproductions (and I mean by accurate, aircraft like Dick Day's Camel at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome, which was built from original drawings, and flew with a rebuilt original Clerget) have a completely different take on these planes than we do. I've never seen anyone here mention Frank Tallman's wonderful book, "Flying the Old Planes." But in the forward to that book, an author mentions that although some of these aircraft's climb rates would equal a modern Cessna of similar power, everything else in a WW1 dogfight took place at the pace of a "dreamy ballet." I've read modern pilots who've flown these aircraft say that what was referred to as a roll during WW1 was actually a flick roll, where the pilot intentionally stalled his plane, and then kicked the rudder to make it roll, because these modern pilots were unable to get them to do an aileron, or slow roll. Compared to the way even modern light planes fly, they had terrible flight characteristics, because they had sloppy, inefficient, flight controls, and sloppy, inefficient airfoils for the most part. The Fokker D-VII had the most modern airfoil shape of just about any WW1 fighter, but even that airfoil was similar to one from the 1920's, not the 1930's. But, at the time, pilots felt that some of these planes handled like a dream, because that's all they knew. Today, the best of them would be considered an aircraft you'd avoid flying if you had a choice.

 

And even at the time, opinions of the most famous of them varied. It wasn't just the Camel that was loved, or hated by the pilots who flew it. Number 24 Squadron was apparently so incensed with their SE-5a's handling that they had their fitters and riggers reduce the dihedral to make them more manuverable. And very few pilots actually like that Lewis Gun, because you were trying to manhandle a 28 pound machine gun in a one hundred mile an hour slipstream. Fine idea that.

 

I guess the upshot of this long rant is that when it comes to flight models, it's all just opinions in the end. And I've always found TK's opinions to be just as valid as any of ours, because at least TK's trying to work within the laws of the aerodynamics he's presented in the sim. And the only criticism I have of the post patch flight models is that now, to me, they roll too quickly, based on what I've read over the past thirty years, but I realize that that may differ from what others have read over the course of their lives, so I'll just happily dig into those data.ini's and change those roll rates, now that Wild_Elmo has explained to me what aerodynamic coefficient does what. I don't think anyone will ever come up with a patch that corrects things, so to speak, because the opinions here are so strong, and based on so little real information.

 

Heh, you just described most of the reasons why these glorified kites with lawnmower engines just don't interest me in the least. Good flight model or not, I think the WWI timeperiod was just too rudimentary to even bother simulating. But that's just me... others obviously disagree.

[FastCargo 412]

Thanks for the response Heck. I completely understand the problems and challenges in creating tese flight models. I really was talking about the glitchy actions of the aircraft. unresponsive rudder controls, harrible stalls that cause the plane to drop out of the sky sideways, big bombers flying at 90mph, need for fixing (manually) weapons configs for bombers, etc, etc. I'm just comlaining about all the faults. Things that dont have anything to do w research. things that are from bad programing. I uderstand it's not easy. I just think if this is to be a great game someone needs to come up w a good patch. With all the updates and expansion packs. Get it all together so everyone can be on the same page.

 

A lot of what you are going on about are about add on aircraft.

 

Imagine trying to QC a patch based on non-supported 3rd party mods.

 

With third party addons, all bets are off.

 

FC

[Heck 496]

Sounds intriguing... I'm out of the loop I guess, please share if/where this may be available???

 

A search for Wild_Elmo at CA pulls the user name out of the list, but zero thread/post results or broken links.

 

This is what I have in a notepad file on my desktop, Bandy.

 

 

".Description of aero coefficients in flight model data files by Wild_Elmo

OK, here is a list of the various aerodynamic coefficients (the 3 or 4 letter variables that start w/ the capital C) that are used in the flight model data files. I've also listed a couple of other variables for the hell of it (Xac and DeltaStallAlpha), but I'm going to limit this discussion primarily to the aerodynamic coefficients since this is how the model generates all of the forces and moments on the airplane.

 

CL0 Lift coefficient at zero angle of attack (AOA)

CLa Lift coefficient due to AOA

CD0 Zero-lift drag coefficient

CDL Drag coefficient due to lift (induced drag effect)

Cmq Pitching moment due to pitch rate (pitch damping)

Cmad Pitching moment due to AOA rate

(aero interaction between wings and horiz tail)

Cyb Side force due to sideslip

Cyp Side force due to roll rate

Cyr Side force due to yaw rate

Clb Roll moment due to sideslip

Clp Roll moment due to roll rate (roll damping)

Clr Roll moment due to yaw rate

Cnb Yaw moment due to sideslip

Cnp Yaw moment due to roll rate

Cnr Yaw moment due to yaw rate (yaw damping)

CLiftdc Lift due to control surface deflection

CDdc Drag due to control surface deflection

Cydc Side force due to control surface deflection

Cldc Roll moment due to control surface deflection

Cmdc Pitch moment due to control surface deflection

Cndc Yaw moment due to control surface deflection

DeltaStallAlpha Increase in max angle-of-attack before stall

Xac X-location of aerodynamic center

 

First thing to realize is that the coefficients are normalized by various dimensions of the aircraft, so they don't represent the absolute value of the force or moment. So for example, for Cnp, the actual yaw moment due to roll rate is found by mulitplying the coefficient by:

(Dynamic pressure * wing area * span^2) / (2*Velocity) There is actually a very good reason for this, but I'm not going to go into it. The important thing to understand is what force or moment is being generated by what."

 

Using this; p10ppy's fe data.ini analyzer (a great tool that I absolutely love), a judicious amount of trial and error, along with an MOI spreadsheet I created that utilizes the information from the data.ini analyzer, enables me to generate data.ini's that I'm happy with, and allows me to change data.ini's that I don't particularly like. I don't post them, because they're uniquely my own, set up to my own tastes, based on the reading I've done. And I don't change TK's at all, except the known problems, like typos, ie: a missing digit in a coefficient, etc.

 

Right now, I spend about 30% of my time with this sim playing with data.ini's (more when a patch comes out; sometimes just to see how all this seems to work), 30% flying (and getting shot up periodically), and 40% now doing this, my latest affliction:

 

Hecht

 

 

Heldmann

 

Both these are unfinished. When I'm done, if anyone wants them, I'll upload them.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Heck

[+Tailspin 3]

I was very hesitant about posting a reply here, because this subject is so touchy, but I think the basic problem that TK has with WW1 flight models is us, the WW1 flight simmers. We are a very opinionated group, and I don't think many will disagree with that statement, although it seems a little odd that people should have such strong opinions about aircraft where we have so little empirical data available, and the empirical data available was collected with instrumentation that can only be described as archane. We are basing our reactions to this flight sim on opinions and statements we have read from pilots of the time in most cases, and sorry few opinions at that, but modern pilots flying accurate reproductions (and I mean by accurate, aircraft like Dick Day's Camel at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome, which was built from original drawings, and flew with a rebuilt original Clerget) have a completely different take on these planes than we do. I've never seen anyone here mention Frank Tallman's wonderful book, "Flying the Old Planes." But in the forward to that book, an author mentions that although some of these aircraft's climb rates would equal a modern Cessna of similar power, everything else in a WW1 dogfight took place at the pace of a "dreamy ballet." I've read modern pilots who've flown these aircraft say that what was referred to as a roll during WW1 was actually a flick roll, where the pilot intentionally stalled his plane, and then kicked the rudder to make it roll, because these modern pilots were unable to get them to do an aileron, or slow roll. Compared to the way even modern light planes fly, they had terrible flight characteristics, because they had sloppy, inefficient, flight controls, and sloppy, inefficient airfoils for the most part. The Fokker D-VII had the most modern airfoil shape of just about any WW1 fighter, but even that airfoil was similar to one from the 1920's, not the 1930's. But, at the time, pilots felt that some of these planes handled like a dream, because that's all they knew. Today, the best of them would be considered an aircraft you'd avoid flying if you had a choice.

 

And even at the time, opinions of the most famous of them varied. It wasn't just the Camel that was loved, or hated by the pilots who flew it. Number 24 Squadron was apparently so incensed with their SE-5a's handling that they had their fitters and riggers reduce the dihedral to make them more manuverable. And very few pilots actually like that Lewis Gun, because you were trying to manhandle a 28 pound machine gun in a one hundred mile an hour slipstream. Fine idea that.

 

I guess the upshot of this long rant is that when it comes to flight models, it's all just opinions in the end. And I've always found TK's opinions to be just as valid as any of ours, because at least TK's trying to work within the laws of the aerodynamics he's presented in the sim. And the only criticism I have of the post patch flight models is that now, to me, they roll too quickly, based on what I've read over the past thirty years, but I realize that that may differ from what others have read over the course of their lives, so I'll just happily dig into those data.ini's and change those roll rates, now that Wild_Elmo has explained to me what aerodynamic coefficient does what. I don't think anyone will ever come up with a patch that corrects things, so to speak, because the opinions here are so strong, and based on so little real information.

 

 

Well said Heck. Several points that seemed to be lost in the beginning from the first complaints about not being able to roll the SPADXIII without going into a nasty spin. Yes, the planes do seem to roll too fast now. This just speeds everything else up. However the AI is so much better than it was before so its tough to go back to the old game. Your ideas on modifying the data.inis are interesting.................

[VONTOBLER 18]

Hey Heck,

Loved the Phalz schemes, I would certainly like to download them when you finish them.

VonTobler

[spook27 5]

Today, the best of them would be considered an aircraft you'd avoid flying if you had a choice.

 

Beautiful phrase, spot on, should be on the mainscreen - and is also precisely the reason so many people love this era!

[Heck 496]

Hey Heck,

Loved the Phalz schemes, I would certainly like to download them when you finish them.

VonTobler

 

I will. Thanks. There'll also be more.

[Heck 496]

Beautiful phrase, spot on, should be on the mainscreen - and is also precisely the reason so many people love this era!

 

Thanks. And that's exactly why it's always been my favorite era.

[Bandy 3]

Heck,

 

Thank you for the post on coefficients, it is VERY much appreciated. Nice skins as well!

 

IMHO, this is indeed a troublesome time for FE if you choose to incorporate 3rd party AC, but nothing that can't be overcome by the community. For aesthetic environmental reasons I do not enjoy the post-expansion/pre-patch game even though Peter's FM's are so well tuned against each other and provide such a damn fine challenge (hope I can say that on family TV...).

 

If the all the wonderful 3rd party work is to be meaningfully included in TK's excellent starting point (and I'm sure others have also tried to use the alt FM's with the latest patch, and been disappointed...) then we either have to individually recreate the wheel, or work together. Many will remember just after FE was first released, and the rush by the talented modders to fill in those AC they wanted to fly, in particular the Nieuports. Some of those FM's came together through the hard work of a few people in an organic process where feedback was welcome right before our eyes here at CA.

 

As a sim community a consensus may never be reached as to how these "kites" handled, and in fact "reality" may be irrelevant for game play anyways since our perspectives have all likely been tainted by simming in other eras. Does this mean we shouldn't at least try? I hope this doesn't strike too many as being idealistic and naive.

Edited December 11, 2008 by B Bandy RFC

[+Tailspin 3]

I have downloaded all the flight model patches. But hardly any of my planes fly right. Even my Fokker Dr1 flight characteristics have changed. There are soo many awsome planes in this game but only a third of them work right. When is this going to be fixed. I mean really fixed. In a patch. Because it reall kills this game. I'm tired of constantly fixing things. I hardly ever get to play. My S.E.5a still flies sidways, and others still have severe stalls and crash. And others have horrible rudder control. Including my favorite Dr.1. I have installed all the new flight models but they dont change much. And all the bombers fly as fast as the fighters. Cant even catch up to them. Some two seaters are more manuverable than the fighters. Sorry to complain, but the game needs lots of work if its to get more players I think. I understand people are putting their own time into this game. Cheers to them all. I just think this game has soo much potential. It's just all over the place right now. Too many things to fix. we need a GOOD patch!

I would like to skin other planes. But I cant use them. Sorry to bitch. I hate to see a good game with so many problems. You dont see to many good WWI simms out there. This one could be one of the best.

 

 

quack, I agree the game has its issues. Rudder authority has been one of my main complaints from the beginning, roll rates etc. A couple of points I'd like to make. While I agree with your general observation regarding 2-seaters, the Brisfit was one of the most successful fighters of the war. As far as catching up with bombers, consider relative speeds. Most fighters of the day were at most only 20-30 mph faster than the bombers some not so much. If the bombers have any kind of altitude advantage and are much more than a half NM away they are going to be very difficult to catch up to and it will take quite a while to do so. If while attacking bombers you chase of after a straggler or engage fighter cover you may find yourself out of the fight. A realistic aspect of the sim IMHO. At least thats been my experience. Another valid, IMHO, point to consider when assessing the current state of FE is that the sim has been evolving constantly since its release. With each change TK makes it affects the previous version in many different ways. No one wants to bust their butt for months reworking flight models only to have the next patch change everything. This is just pure speculation on my part but I think with the latest set of patches for all the Thirdwire series we may be at a settling point for a while. Hope so. IMO the latest iteration of the sim, whether its "realistic" enough or not, is a very good air combat sim with great character and potential. Its that character and potential that keeps me interested.

[Heck 496]

IMO the latest iteration of the sim, whether its "realistic" enough or not, is a very good air combat sim with great character and potential. Its that character and potential that keeps me interested.

 

I'll raise a glass to that, Tailspin! Now Heavy Handed Hans can really ham handle Handy Halberstadters. No matter what happens to this sim, I keep coming back to it. And IMHO it just keeps getting better. Stalls, spins, mushing in turns, creepy controls, I really get the feel of flying now, which I didn't in many sims I've owned in the past, where it always felt as though I were too much in control. I like the feeling of always being on the edge of control in a dogfight, and that I might lose it, with less than happy results. Which isn't hard for me, because I really am Heavy Handed Hans.

[Bandy 3]

...it just keeps getting better. Stalls, spins, mushing in turns, creepy controls, I really get the feel of flying now, ... I like the feeling of always being on the edge of control in a dogfight, and that I might lose it,

 

It really does keep evolving, and challenging. It is those split second moments when you forget about everything else but the engagement. FE plays great at the close-range.

There was a kevlar coated AlbDV opponent quite successfully stall flight me; had an N17 wingmate do a perfect energy management zoom & flick roll to end up on an opponents tail (well, the N17 was regarded as a highly maneuverable AC... try it out post patch if only to watch the pre-patch FM AI do it's thing--this is a flight model thread afterall).

 

When they get it 'just right', and that AI head turns towards you, sometimes it's like... you know...

Edited December 15, 2008 by B Bandy RFC

[Heck 496]

When they get it 'just right', and that AI head turns towards you, sometimes it's like... you know...

 

I know what you mean, Bandy. Sometimes I spend way to much time in external view. Even when I wind up out of the fight ("Oh, jolly good. Lead's landed again!), I f6 through the fight just watching. And, depending on the skill levels, I see some really vicious stuff going on. These little virtual creepies like killing each other as much as they enjoy trying to kill me. Like the other night, my Albatros flight was duking it out with some Spad 7's, after the lead Spad killed my engine in the merge, and I returned the favor, when, all the sudden, a flight of Nieuport 27's showed up to shred my fellows. I had just switched off of viewing one of my own being shot to pieces, and it went to a view of the guy doing the shooting, one of the last of the Spads. He must have just killed the machine he was shooting at, because as I slewed the view around, trying to get behind him to watch him shoot, the little head turned toward me as if to say, "What are you looking at." I knew it was time to leave....

[Nikk 0]

I have downloaded all the flight model patches. But hardly any of my planes fly right. Even my Fokker Dr1 flight characteristics have changed. There are soo many awsome planes in this game but only a third of them work right. When is this going to be fixed. I mean really fixed. In a patch. Because it reall kills this game. I'm tired of constantly fixing things. I hardly ever get to play. My S.E.5a still flies sidways, and others still have severe stalls and crash. And others have horrible rudder control. Including my favorite Dr.1. I have installed all the new flight models but they dont change much. And all the bombers fly as fast as the fighters. Cant even catch up to them. Some two seaters are more manuverable than the fighters. Sorry to complain, but the game needs lots of work if its to get more players I think. I understand people are putting their own time into this game. Cheers to them all. I just think this game has soo much potential. It's just all over the place right now. Too many things to fix. we need a GOOD patch!

I would like to skin other planes. But I cant use them. Sorry to bitch. I hate to see a good game with so many problems. You dont see to many good WWI simms out there. This one could be one of the best.

 

Dude, you must have some config or joystick problems. I fly FE and other wings of, never had any problem at all, FM are good. The game is wonderful BTW, just as TK games in general.

 

I use last patch.

[Heck 496]

Since this is a flight model thread, I'll post this here. I noticed one odd thing about the post Nov patch data.ini's. All of the Thirdwire aircraft have had their alphastall= values lowered by between .5 and 3 degrees with the exception of four aircraft: the three Spads and the SE5a. The new values are all between roughly 6.5 (DFW) and 12.0 (Fok DVIIf) degrees. The Spads were all in the most common 8-9 degree range already, so that's probably why they were'nt changed, and I understand why the Fokker DVII series would only change a little, since they were the best airfoil section of WW1, according to most sources, but that still left the SE5a with all it's bizarre take off behavior as the joker in the pack. So, I lowered each alphastall= value for it by 3 degrees, from 11 to 8, or 12 to 9, depending on the section, and I think it flies much better now, and is consistant with the others. I couldn't think of one good aerodynamic reason for it to be so much higher than the other aircraft, considering it's airfoil, which I believe was an RAF 15, was certainly no more advanced than the RAF 16 used on the Camel, and very much less advanced than the "almost modern" high lift section used on the Fokker DVII's. If my logic is wrong, somebody who knows more about this subject please let me know.