View Full Version : Flight Models defenition
BelgianTiger_4
11-03-2004, 14:17
Hello all,
As most of you know, I am one of the FM developers for FO. I always tried to keep me low profile, because the work is more important for me rather then posting tons and tons of posts. But seeing a lot of topics regarding flight models makes me little bit disappointed. There is a big, big misunderstanding, between flight models and graphic modelling. Flight modelling codes the flight behaviour of the aircraft. When it turns left right, pitch up and down, yaw left, right. If a plane crashes, this is only a physical interaction between certain objects. The mechanical and physical laws will do the rest. What you see for example in the Lock On movie is nice modelled graphical wise, but still, there are incorrect movements of the aircraft. It is not because it looks nice it is super realistic. Forget it, upcoming 10 years or so you can forget to see super realistic FM. The real flight simulators of the military and civilian industry are driven by sometimes 5 20GHz processors just to run 1 specific FM of a specific aircraft. Imagine what this does when you make a sim for all aircrafts or some of them. You have to cut, into this. Simplify. It is my job and that of my team to do this with minimum loss of realism. As said before, Lock on is a nice sim on graphics, they knew the FM were not so correct, now they work on it, which I only can support. But what I see today is still not even close to what the FM team is designing.
It is not my duty to spread out info about this, nor drool you guys with amazing promises. But nevertheless, to show you how detailed our work will be:
anti/de icing system (if installed on AC) will be most likely implemented. So when have ice conditions are present, and you don't turn the system on, engine stall, surge, flame out, explosions can occur after a certain time. When flying through a cloud, you will think twice before going into battle, dogfight. After all, it's your engine and the aircraft performance you're messing with. This is a major step in Flight Sim history, cause this means you also have to look outside, what enviroment am I fying in. Wheater, terain, enemy, ...
Engine handling will be depending on the engine type. From workhorses with EEC control till full FADEC engine control designs. This will affect the workload of the pilot on the engine which he uses. And I can guarantee you, this isn't that easy ion the EEC controlled AC.
For now, this is only what I am going to give away for info. But there is a lot more.
But let me make one thing clear. The FM definition is something totally different then most of the people are saying here. Don't rape the word. It is one of the most important and vital issues that makes a sim realistic and make it to a success.
ruprecht
11-03-2004, 15:38
**applause**
Thanks for the update :thumb:
It's much appreciated :bigsmile:
Hello all,
....The real flight simulators of the military and civilian industry are driven by sometimes 5 20GHz processors just to run 1 specific FM of a specific aircraft...
And with a dedicated Operating System as well.
No DX9 or XP/ME compatability worries there.
Hello all,
As most of you know, I am one of the FM developers for FO. I always tried to keep me low profile, because the work is more important for me rather then posting tons and tons of posts. But seeing a lot of topics regarding flight models makes me little bit disappointed. There is a big, big misunderstanding, between flight models and graphic modelling. Flight modelling codes the flight behaviour of the aircraft. When it turns left right, pitch up and down, yaw left, right. If a plane crashes, this is only a physical interaction between certain objects. The mechanical and physical laws will do the rest. What you see for example in the Lock On movie is nice modelled graphical wise, but still, there are incorrect movements of the aircraft. It is not because it looks nice it is super realistic. Forget it, upcoming 10 years or so you can forget to see super realistic FM. The real flight simulators of the military and civilian industry are driven by sometimes 5 20GHz processors just to run 1 specific FM of a specific aircraft. Imagine what this does when you make a sim for all aircrafts or some of them. You have to cut, into this. Simplify. It is my job and that of my team to do this with minimum loss of realism. As said before, Lock on is a nice sim on graphics, they knew the FM were not so correct, now they work on it, which I only can support. But what I see today is still not even close to what the FM team is designing.
It is not my duty to spread out info about this, nor drool you guys with amazing promises. But nevertheless, to show you how detailed our work will be:
anti/de icing system (if installed on AC) will be most likely implemented. So when have ice conditions are present, and you don't turn the system on, engine stall, surge, flame out, explosions can occur after a certain time. When flying through a cloud, you will think twice before going into battle, dogfight. After all, it's your engine and the aircraft performance you're messing with. This is a major step in Flight Sim history, cause this means you also have to look outside, what enviroment am I fying in. Wheater, terain, enemy, ...
Engine handling will be depending on the engine type. From workhorses with EEC control till full FADEC engine control designs. This will affect the workload of the pilot on the engine which he uses. And I can guarantee you, this isn't that easy ion the EEC controlled AC.
For now, this is only what I am going to give away for info. But there is a lot more.
But let me make one thing clear. The FM definition is something totally different then most of the people are saying here. Don't rape the word. It is one of the most important and vital issues that makes a sim realistic and make it to a success.
That's it Goose!
Givem what for!
As for me, I'm working with the codes right now on airframe modeling/charactoristics. Goose has the engines down pat! I have posted this before... You will all need to re-learn how to fly these aircraft. It woun't be a simple task to hop into the pit and go. Everything from trim and slat configs, to CAT III limits and fuel balancing. TAKE TIME TO LEARN THEM, as hyper realistic modeling is our eventual aim. Be patient. I realy think your gonna like this.... :bounce:
You will all need to re-learn how to fly these aircraft. It woun't be a simple task to hop into the pit and go. Everything from trim and slat configs, to CAT III limits and fuel balancing. TAKE TIME TO LEARN THEM, as hyper realistic modeling is our eventual aim.
Can I assume that these elements can be "dumbed down" to a certain degree? I don't want to take away from the huge effort that the FM team are doing to provide a top class FM for FO, but there will be some of us (myself included) that are completely mystified by the whole aerodynamics aspect of flying. It's taken me around about a year to even get a handle on LGB delivery in Falcon4, and I will probably get very frustrated if it takes way too long to get up in the air "turnng and burning" with the rest of you.
I support your efforts in modeling to a new level of realism. I would just like the ability to scale it while us mere mortals get a handle on the rest of the systems.
Can I assume that these elements can be "dumbed down" to a certain degree? I don't want to take away from the huge effort that the FM team are doing to provide a top class FM for FO, but there will be some of us (myself included) that are completely mystified by the whole aerodynamics aspect of flying. It's taken me around about a year to even get a handle on LGB delivery in Falcon4, and I will probably get very frustrated if it takes way too long to get up in the air "turnng and burning" with the rest of you.
I support your efforts in modeling to a new level of realism. I would just like the ability to scale it while us mere mortals get a handle on the rest of the systems.
Hey Divot,
Yep!!!, most of the advanced features will be switchable to a certian degree. I think we all came to that conclusion some time ago. As for your learning curve, welcome to high fedelity flight sims!!!! :bigsmile:
Red Gold and Green
11-04-2004, 01:30
Awesome!
Good shit Bro :wink2:
What does "hyper-realistic" mean? :)
The Lock On movies are demonstrating the destruction model and the gear model physics more then anything. Not the flight model.
Buckshot
11-04-2004, 01:49
What does "hyper-realistic" mean? :)
The Lock On movies are demonstrating the destruction model and the gear model physics more then anything. Not the flight model.
Yeah, exactly, that is what Bart is trying to point out, too many people use the term "flight model" far too loosly. And yeah, Hyper Realistic is a pretty arbitary term.
Yeah, exactly, that is what Bart is trying to point out, too many people use the term "flight model" far too loosly. And yeah, Hyper Realistic is a pretty arbitary term.
Nice posts BelgianTiger jhook and Buckshot! Great for reading.
What does "hyper-realistic" mean? :)
The Lock On movies are demonstrating the destruction model and the gear model physics more then anything. Not the flight model.
Quote from the lock on movie post.
"ok, i know this is a fighterops forum but as a fightersim fan you´ve gotta love the new ultra realistic flightmodel."
Bart was pointing out the difference in a FM and a graphic presentation of how forces influence the behaviour of the undercarriage of an aircraft, and the way it is supposed to react in a collision.(which are the Lomac movies).
I'll give you a definition of hyper realistic, or rather give you my idea of it for FO, since you have been asking for this in several threads already.
"We will get it as close to real as technically possible."
And again this is my understanding of hyperrealistic, and doesn't have to be yours. :wink2:
Happy Shepsky??
Best,
Dirk
sweinhart3
11-04-2004, 22:36
I understand the definition of a flight model. It was mentioned that in professional simulators, it can take up to 5 high powered processors to run it for just one aircraft. I know fighter-ops is planning to have several aircraft available, and I know that there has been talk of multi-cpu support, but I'm sure that the sim will be aimed at the average joe with one decent computer. While I am not one of those people as I have several very high performance pcs, how much is the sim going to have to be dumbed down for a normal pc to handle it?
I think the hyper realistic goal is a good aim. Aiming high there is nothing wrong with that but it will take time to reach that level. You're not going to reach that in the first release. I'd say about the 3rd or 4th year is my prediction where you would reach such a level. I don't think anyone here can really comment on V1.1 as no one has it yet so we can't really talk about the advanced flight model until we get it. Those movies are really examples of their work at that time, I'd say they have probably improved on the physics modeling in the V1.1 over what we saw in those movies. I very much look forward to the release of FO and seeing your guys work. Its gonna be good.
cheers
Subs
I'll give you a definition of hyper realistic, or rather give you my idea of it for FO, since you have been asking for this in several threads already.
"We will get it as close to real as technically possible."
And again this is my understanding of hyperrealistic, and doesn't have to be yours. :wink2:
Happy Shepsky??
Hehe... Hi Dirk,
Actually... "hyper" means over, above, and beyond. Therefore "hyper-realistic" means "beyond realistic". Does F/O want their FM's to be beyond realistic? Didn't think so. :wink:
Saying you are striving to get the work as close to realistic as possible is, what I think, the best way to describe it since we all know it will never be "realistic". You have described it perfectly in your quote above. :)
The new advanced flight model in Lock On v1.1 is about the developer striving to get it as realistic as possible with what he has to work with in time lines and resources.
FYI... I asked the AFM(Advanced Flight Model) developer for Lock On v1.1 if it is a dynamic physics based FM and this was his reply... through a web translator.
"It is concerned physics AFM:
The model of the dynamics of aircraft, as solid body, absolutely AFM uses only real world phisic laws, no scripts are applyed on aircraft behaviour, and it is based exclusively on the integration of the forces acting on the aircraft. In this case, to aircraft nothing it is known about nature of the appearance of these forces. To it it is important to know only that, what they are values, where they are applied and as directed. The resulting motion is obtained automatically, taking into account the current center-of-gravity location, the mass of aircraft and moments of inertia.
Another matter - as to calculate forces themselves, so that the motion would appear natural and would answer assigned aircraft's technical reference characteristics data of prototype... here here, exactly, and secret lies. But of course that taking into account a large quantity of boundary conditions, at this level (calculation of forces) without a number of "skids" not"
to manage.
I hope you enjoy flying and fighting in the Su-25T!
Cheers,
Mark
PS: how do I get the smilies working?
Hehe... Hi Dirk,
Actually... "hyper" means over, above, and beyond. Therefore "hyper-realistic" means "beyond realistic". Does F/O want their FM's to be beyond realistic? Didn't think so. :wink:
Saying you are striving to get the work as close to realistic as possible is, what I think, the best way to describe it since we all know it will never be "realistic". You have described it perfectly in your quote above. :)
The new advanced flight model in Lock On v1.1 is about the developer striving to get it as realistic as possible with what he has to work with in time lines and resources.
FYI... I asked the AFM(Advanced Flight Model) developer for Lock On v1.1 if it is a dynamic physics based FM and this was his reply... through a web translator.
"It is concerned physics AFM:
The model of the dynamics of aircraft, as solid body, absolutely AFM uses only real world phisic laws, no scripts are applyed on aircraft behaviour, and it is based exclusively on the integration of the forces acting on the aircraft. In this case, to aircraft nothing it is known about nature of the appearance of these forces. To it it is important to know only that, what they are values, where they are applied and as directed. The resulting motion is obtained automatically, taking into account the current center-of-gravity location, the mass of aircraft and moments of inertia.
Another matter - as to calculate forces themselves, so that the motion would appear natural and would answer assigned aircraft's technical reference characteristics data of prototype... here here, exactly, and secret lies. But of course that taking into account a large quantity of boundary conditions, at this level (calculation of forces) without a number of "skids" not"
to manage.
I hope you enjoy flying and fighting in the Su-25T!
Cheers,
Mark
PS: how do I get the smilies working?
Hey Shepski,
Great post on the LOMAC model. However, I have an opinion about how LOMAC goes about creating a flight model. If you noticed, Mark had said "solid object with everything else affecting it" meaning the forces of nature/gravity affecting the solid object. FO will go much farther than that!
I will say this much, aircraft are desigend to perform and meet specific criteria. They are designed to perform by this criteria for the ability to manuver by this design. The F-15 and the F-16 are excellent examples of this. When comparing turn radius of every major fighter in there class, these two aircraft utilize air flow more effeciently then other fighters of there class. The resistance to air flow in the turn (radius v's inertia and gravity) and the overall performace at altittude, will be model to a degree of accuracy that can be model for the home computer!!!!! :ylsuper:
I am hoping that even the demo will demonstrate this advanced aproach to flight modeling. Not down playing LOMAC. I happily await the release of there latest add-on for the game. It is just that FO will exceed these models eventually. Just stating the facts sir.
Hey Shepski,
Great post on the LOMAC model. However, I have an opinion about how LOMAC goes about creating a flight model. If you noticed, Mark had said "solid object with everything else affecting it" meaning the forces of nature/gravity affecting the solid object. FO will go much farther than that!
It is just that FO will exceed these models eventually. Just stating the facts sir.
Hi jhook,
Actually, I'm Mark and I was quoting the developer. :) It's through translation from Russian so some leeway in how it comes out is needed. He was refering to the physics aspect of the FM in how, for example, weapons hanging on pylons have weight and drag and when a weapon(A2G missile) is fired from one wing only the loss of weight and drag affect how the aircraft reacts. For example, the lighter wing will rise and cause it to accelerate, the heavier wing will drop and deccelrate, which will in turn create yaw.
He has all the flight and engine performance data which is what is meant in the sentance, "so that the motion would appear natural and would answer assigned aircraft's technical reference characteristics data".
Good luck with the F/O FM and I hope to see it in action!
Cheers,
Mark
Now I think I know the reason why Flanker series always step forward so slowly. Always keep their eyes on these minor details.But this is not 1997 times, new sims's flightmodel engines will bring little differences of sense,if they r good enough, there r no patents and no limit here, especially to a project like FO.(I remember Mr.Zhang <my neighbour,a aerodynamics professor> told me that its not possible yet to make a high quality CFD model on a persional computer). And many other elements are the key to step up virtual pilot's flight/fight experience level. In my opinion, LOMAC has little new elements in fact, what it has provided, is still the old things from 1991. Even compare to ancient falcon3, very hard to find new points(and still lack of many basic features). We really need a revolutionary advancement sim. Thats why I keep my eyes on FighterOps and support it. I hope it will bring the surprise to all of us , just like the shock Falcon3/4 had brought to us.
And maybe from another point of view, maybe I gave the wrong hope to LOMAC. Perhaps it just wanna be a better Jane's USAF but not a hard game like FS2004 or Falcon4. So be it.
And maybe from another point of view, maybe I gave the wrong hope to LOMAC. Perhaps it just wanna be a better Jane's USAF but not a hard game like FS2004 or Falcon4. So be it.Are you talking flight models?
FS2004 is hard?
Falcon 4 is hard?
LOL!
Here is some information on just a few new things coming in Lock On v1.1:
http://forum.lockon.ru/viewtopic.php?t=2116
When other sims can match or surpass the Russian avionics found in 1.1 then you might have an aurgument on Lock On being behind the times and no more advanced then Falcon 3.0 ROFL!
Are you talking flight models?
FS2004 is hard?
Falcon 4 is hard?
LOL!
Still dont get it? NO, Im not talking about Flightmodel. Not like somebody who dont understand how to create a flight model but still made many comments on it. I dont know much ,so I dont talk about it much ;).
Yes, FS2004 is hard, lomac is not.
Yes, Falcon4 is hard(but old), lomac is not.
An ADF FM wont make Jane's USAF hard, Same to LOMAC. ;)
PS:1.1 not released yet, no comments.
Still dont get it? NO, Im not talking about Flightmodel. Not like somebody who dont understand how to create a flight model but still made many comments on it. I dont know much ,so I dont talk about it much ;).
Yes, FS2004 is hard, lomac is not.
Yes, Falcon4 is hard(but old), lomac is not.
An ADF FM wont make Jane's USAF hard, Same to LOMAC. ;)
PS:1.1 not released yet, no comments.
Hmm... this thread is about flight models so I thought you might be talking about flight models.
I guess "hard" is purely subjective. :)
The Su-25 and Su-25T in v1.1 are a handfull to fly and fight with, some might even call it "hard". ;)
[QUOTE=Shepski]http://forum.lockon.ru/viewtopic.php?t=2116
QUOTE]
Great for reading. If team sticks on one plane, things maybe better. I always think a Flanker3 will be better than LOMAC (just persional opinion). Too many planes, hard to make enough details for each one.
PS:I bought 3 copys of LOMAC(1 for my friend ,1 lended and one for myself). Its not that I'm jaundiced to it. Just my opinion not only stay on separate things like FM,Avionics, I consider them as a whole thing, a claudicant sim always not fit me myself. And yes, Falcon4 and Janes F/A-18 r good ,but they r old. And FS2004 is not a Combat game. LOMAC is claudicant, and IL2 is not a modern Jets game. So naturally, I move my eyes on FO now....
And yes , I'm too OT :"(.
Its time to talk about FMs, err......what I only want to say: I just sit back and watch, until their released and everything will be clear then.
THX for 1.1 features, and a question: will 1.1 be download free or its a new product? I cant read Russian. oh sh*t, OT again.......-_-||
Hehe...
I agree, too many planes for very high fidelity but they are now working on that and the Su-25T is the first example of it... it's more like a study sim and the improved combat avionics of the Flanker and Mig are also showing that Eagle Dynamics is moving in the right direction. :)
1.1 is an add on that is being released to the Russian market in stores but will also be available to all as a download you pay for.
There may be a free bug fix patch too but it won't have the Su-25T or AFM or many other things.
BelgianTiger_4
11-05-2004, 10:24
The design of the FM is build up in sutch a way that each category of aircraft has his own FM. General, aerodynamical behaviour of an F18 is the same as that of an F-15. Allthough those are 2 different aircrafts. But it has both fixed wings, 2 engines, and so on. Therefor, the only thing that changes in a group (category) of airplanes are the numbers. Which is aircraft specific and by this, related to each type of aircraft. So we generate a unique FM for each aircraft that everybody can handle on his PC. Because only 1 high fid. FM has to run. All other planes are just datatransfer of basic numbers that gives position and status. By this, we can increase the realism in our FM.
Not forgetting that in any way, AI will be simple aircraft that's easy to get away from. But this is an other type and buil-up of code.
Falcon used just 1 FM, the F-16 FM, all other aircrafts were derivates from this. And because of that, all other aircrafts are related to what an F-16 can or cannot. By seperating, you generate possebilities that I never have seen before in FM designing for comercial simulators.
We have been thinking a lot about this, and developing is going very well.
You see that when the final release comes out, you will be able to fly fighters, bombers, tankers, ... with each a nice high FID. FM.
The hardest work for us is when the plane will react under 'unstabile' conditions, and this will be for us an developing over months, even years. failures, system operations, all this kind of stuff need to be coded in sutch a way, it keeps itself to a specific aircraft, and not just a few types or 1 AC like in falcon.
Ogami musashi
11-07-2004, 07:59
Jhook and belgium tiger:
Hello, i'm pretty pleased to read the goals of FO FMs.
Lock on AFM are not coded like you think, and reading your last message belgian tiger, i can tell you that i think you're misleading onto them.
But i'm also very very pleased to see the passion you have for the developpement of FO FM.
I wish the FM FO team the best luck for the developpement of their FM.
See you.
Heres a question regarding FOs FM. Just wondering, I notice that the good ol Hornet has featured in some of those nice screen shots. I was wondering whether we'll be able to pull some of those fancy manouvres that you sometimes see them do at airshows. In particular the high angle of attack very slow fly past (80km/h). Its something that I haven't seen feature in a Hornet sim yet where you can take advantage of the LEX and large surface area etc.
cheers
Subs
Buckshot
11-07-2004, 23:16
When the hornet is flyable, sure :wink2:
Heres a question regarding FOs FM. Just wondering, I notice that the good ol Hornet has featured in some of those nice screen shots. I was wondering whether we'll be able to pull some of those fancy manouvres that you sometimes see them do at airshows. In particular the high angle of attack very slow fly past (80km/h). Its something that I haven't seen feature in a Hornet sim yet where you can take advantage of the LEX and large surface area etc.
cheers
Subs
Hey Subs,
Yes sir, those fancy manuvers are a part of what's going on here. Not to say we are creating a bunch of arobatic aircraft, but some (if not all) of the more famous ACM's will be modeled. It will take time to master them, but it should be time well spent.
I'm sure some of us will make the time to use some of those manuovres for fun. I have to admit seeing an Aussie Hornet cruise past at that speed is a sight for sore eyes. Its like watching a Holden Commodore idle past on the motor way.
lol
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.