Conspicuous by Their Absence

[Ivan]

Gauges

This thread pretty much describes the issues:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?85498-Compiling-FS98-CFS-Gauges

My W98 C Compiler is Delorie Gnu C. It works well enough for text based ANSI C which accounts for most of my programming.
It has no hope whatsoever of building a Windows application.
There are many compilers that will build a Windows application.

Microsoft Gauges come with a HUGE SDK with libraries, header files, etc.
The problem is that all of the compilers with the exception of probably MS Visual C will make their own definitions for objects and types that they need but the definitions in THEIR header files will most likely not match those of the Gauge SDK.

Thus when you try to compile a gauge, the compiler barfs (technical term) when it encounters SDK typedefs that conflict with its own.
In addition, the names and contents of the header files will not agree. There are probably a few thousand references across a hundred or so files.
If you dig down far enough as I did, you come across basic type mismatches in fundamental header files themselves which means that one compiler may simply not work with the other's "extensions" to ANSI C.
It could be something so simple as one header defining a new type as an Unsigned Character while the other defines it as a Character.
Looks simple enough, but if every library function of the compiler expects one type and gets the other, then the whole world blows up.

The gauges I need are Tachometers and Manifold Pressure. Additional Trim gauges would be useful as well.

What I did accomplish was to use MinGW on my old dead Vista machine to compile a dumbed down tachometer for the second engine of my B-25 Mitchell. I dummied out some things, redefined others and hard coded things that referenced libraries and eventually got it to compile.
The problem was that while it ran on a Windows 2000 game computer, it crashed to desktop when I tried to run it on Windows 98.

From what I can tell, MSVC version 5 is probably what I need to find. MSVC version 6 MIGHT work as a cross-compiler but won't install on W98.
Neither version is available at this time so I believe I am stuck.

Ideas?

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Two technicalities

Hi Ivan,
-Pity about the gauges problem. It seems to be more difficult for CFS1 and FS98 than for newer simulators.
-Very interesting, what NoDice is trying to accomplish with Abacus and AF99!
-As for the hairy mole on the beautiful girl´s face, I would say definitely remove it if you can do so without ruining her face or altering it... as non-invasive as possible!
-You commented:
Quote: "...but would probably change things so that it would build a CFS MDL instead of a FS98 MDL.". Do you mean the CFS virtual cockpit and the trembling view here?
-I agree entirely with your comment:
Quote: "I believe good work can be done within the limitations of AF99.
I have already said it many times, but trying to prove that a nice looking aeroplane could be built entirely within AF99 is why I started building to begin with."
They do look good!

Well... Here are the 2 technicalities I was wondering if I could bounce off you, about the Austro Gotha G.4 Grossflugzeug.
1) Engines: These were Austrian Hiero-6, normal, 6-cyl, non-high-compression.
Displacement: 943 cu. in. (157.2 cu.in.per cyl).
Compression ratio 4.93:1
Power: 200-230 Hp @ 1400 RPM @ sea-level.

There´s no additional information to justify the power-range. Austro-FIAT also built this model, of which I found a British report - they assumed it to produce 220 hp. Curiously, displacement was 1014 cu.in (169 cu.in. per cyl), so the more general information before is somewhat incomplete - they did increase displacement a bit to get the higher power.

The problem in the .air file is that RPM and Hp readings are impossible to get right simultaneously. No manipulation of propeller efficiency/thrust or engine torque/friction or Zero Lift Drag parameters produce tallying results. Either RPM are too high, or Hp too low.

Experimenting with displacement of 200 cu.in. per cylinder seems to balance Hp and RPM better.

Looking at specifications for other similar engines, those producing 230 hp normally have greater displacement, and alternatively, with similar displacement, power is lower. For example:
Austro-Daimler-6: 917 cu.in, comp. 5.00:1, giving 200 hp @ 1350 rpm
Benz IV 6-cyl : 1149 cu.in, comp. 4.91:1, giving 230 hp @ 1400 rpm

2) Angle of incidence: 6 degrees! I fear this is too much for the .air file to handle, as RoC is 3 times too high. Aircraft performance is more correct if I enter 3 degrees for the AoI.

What would be your opinion about changing the specs to achieve a more fitting performance?
Take your time with the answer, I know you don´t have much time lately, and there´s no hurry!
Cheers, and thanks in advance.
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hiero-6

Hello Aleatorylamp,

My opinion is that all of the parameters in both your engine AND your wing angle of incidence can be met.
The aeroplane will have a very odd CL Graph (Table 404) but I believe it can be built.

I need a little time to prove the engine part. The airframe and angle of incidence requires a LOT more information than you supplied.
What would the idle speed be? I am going to put it fairly low but will not try to tune it since I don't have a number to aim for.

- Ivan.

 

[No Dice]

Aleatorylamp or anyone,

Is it possible to change the gray to white on Aleatorylamp posts, very hard to read.

Dave

 

[Ivan]

Hello No Dice,

You are using CombatFs/CFC default colour scheme (Lower Left at bottom of the page).
SOH scheme works better for me.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hiero 6

Hi Ivan,
Thanks for your post, I didn´t expect it so soon! I hadn´t thought of CL Graph Table 404!!
OK, so the parameters are not "out of scope" for the sim, which was the main reason for my query.

Here is some more information:
1) An additional deduction:
If the displacement was 943 cu.in. for the 200 hp version, and 1014 for the 220 hp version, then for the 230 hp one it would be 1121 cu.in, which would make it easier to fine-tune.
2) Prop diameter was 10.2 ft. and idle speed 450 rpm (yes, fairly low!).
3) Restly specifications for the plane are
-Max. speed: 85 mph (74 kt) at sea-level,
82 mph (71 kt) at 3000 ft
75 mph (65 kt) at 9000 ft
-Ceiling: 15000 ft loaded with 770 lb, 21000 ft unloaded
-RoC to 3000 ft: 428 fpm loaded, 500 fpm unloaded
-average RoC to 9000 ft: 150 fpm loaded, 333 fpm unloaded

-Weights:
Dry weight: 6833 lb
Fuel: 250 USG (1500 lb)
Medium Bomb load of 330 lb
Ammo: 2000 rounds, 156 lb

Oops! Edited update:
-Wing:
Span: 933 ft
Area: 966 sq ft
Chord: 188 (biplane)
AoI: 6 degrees


Thanks a lot for your help! I´ll see what I can do with Graph 404
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Truly Epic Proportions!

A Wingspan of 933 ft ???

I think you're going to run into problems there.....

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Wingspan

Hi Ivan,
Oh, dear! Sorry: Inches... that´s what it was: 77 ft 8 in.

The tweaking of Graph table 404 is already going quite well, and I´m getting better RoC´s, and I´ve been adjusting the FD to get a better approximation to the performance I´m aiming for.

Present data for 500 ft:
Hp: 230 (perfect)
RPM: 1480 (too high, should be 1400)
Horizontal speed: 74 ft (perfect)
RoC: about 560 fpm (Good)

Performance for 3000 ft and 9000 ft seem to be quite coherent as well.
The only way I can think of to get the RPM down at the moment, is to increase the cylinder displacement, but from what you said, there must be a better way!

I was wondering if it is a good moment to send you the plane for you to have a look into the FD, or perhaps it will be better to leave it for a while until you have more time on your hands.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

I guess I don't need to do any engine testing after all if you already have the right numbers.
As for dropping RPM, how does increasing the displacement do this????
You would want to increase the propeller power coefficient instead, but probably not by very much at all.

The last two evenings I turned on the development computer but got caught up in chores and just turned it off again a few hours later without having done a thing.
The Ki 61 Hien just waits patiently as it has since 2006.

One of the things I believe I should tune is maximum propeller efficiency. The stock P-51D hits 90% or 91% at its peak.
I believe the proper value should be no more than about 85% maximum, but adjusting this causes a whole mess of changes in a lot of places.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Adjustments

Hi Ivan,
OK, then, it sounds like it won´t be too difficult then, and I won´t have to bother you!


What I´ve experimented, is that by increasing displacement, Horsepower goes up more than RPM, and later, to reduce power to the correct Hp again, I increase prop thrust, and maybe also friction, and then RPM comes down further, reaching a more correct value.


I am also using the propeller power (thrust) coefficient, to adjust things, but that also affects Hp - that´s why it´s a bir difficult, but I´ll get there in the end!


Edited update:
I´ve just tried a small prop-thrust-coefficient increase again, combining it with a slight friction reduction, and this time I´ve managed to reduce the RPM by about 50 RPM. I´m almost there! Interesting that you insisted on small adjustments - Good! - maybe I won´t have to cheat with the Cylinder Displacement after all!
By the way, I also noticed that if the thrust coefficient is reduced too much (below .03700) it starts having the opposite effect, and actually reduces power/rpm instead of increasing it further - which I suppose is coherent too.


Cheers and thanks a lot!
...and good luck with the Ki 61 Hien!
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Bang on!

Hi Ivan,
It worked! Just like you said! (you´ll think: "Of course...")
Wow! As per specs: 74 kt, 230 hp, 1400 rpm, at sea-level.

Thanks again for your never-ending patience and help!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

CL graph table 404

Hi Ivan,

I´m adjusting the AoA vs. lift graph, and have of course found that raising or lowering different points on the graph affects rate of climb. However, I don´t understand exactly what I´m doing, as the AoA´s indicated in the Beckwith control gauge and the AoA in the graph table don´t coincide.

When the plane is in horizontal flight, at 500 ft, the AoA reading is 57 degrees, and at 10000 ft, requiring pronounced trim-up, the AoA reading for horizontal flight is 77.7 degrees.

Presumably, adjusting CL for the higher AoA´s can help differentiate RoC´s for higher flight levels as opposed to the lower ones, as a more pronounced AoA is needed for level flight higher up.

Then, the reading is zero in a pronounced 45 º dive...

I wonder if you could perhaps clarify what exactly the AoA on the Beckwith guage measures.
In the beckwith Gauge, stall happens more or less after 100 degrees, and in the Graph table, it is just after 16 dregrees. I´m afraid I´m a bit lost with the numbers here!

Thanks very much in advance for your help!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp.

From what I can tell, the AoA gauge does not appear to work and I have never used it.

- ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
OK thanks, no problem!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Autro-Gotha G.IV uploaded.

Hi all!
Here´s a link to the new upload:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...id=19&id=19654
I hope you like it!
I´ve just uploaded a 1918 Austro-Gotha G.IV . It is a revised version with guns and gunners, CFS1 .air file, Dp files and SCASM-corrected virtual cockpit view.
These machines served with the Austrian Airforce in Aviano and had a pair of Austrian 230 Hp Hieronymus engines, with which they managed to cross the Alps even though they were not of the high-compression, high-altitude engine type as the Mercedes or Maybach ones.
Enjoy!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Simulations versus Games

Hello All,

This is a subject I have been thinking of for about the last month or so.
It started with a discussion on another site about the FW 190A and how poorly it is simulated in "Flight Simulators".
In the particular Game in question, the player stated that the 190A was such a poor aircraft that it needed to have an escort of Me 109s to get to a bomber intercept.

While I agree that a Sturmbock 190A with extra guns and a LOT more armour would not be competitive in a fighter duel, the regular 190A historically was quite a dangerous adversary in fighter combat.
Even in Combat Flight SIMULATOR, the stock FW 190A requires a superior pilot or very good teamwork to be competitive in a fighter.
One has to wonder HOW the 190A became such a brick in the simulators.
This sounds like a rehash of several earlier posts I have made over the years, but it is just a lead in to the real discussion.

The fellow who started this discussion actually was a player of "World of Warplanes". In order to address his issues, I had to do some basic research (not in the game) of WoWP and came across Wings of Thunder which is a very similar game.
The basic idea of these games is online competition with other players.
A new player starts with a ridiculous pre-war BIPLANE fighter (such as a Heinkel 51 which is more suited to the beginning of the Spanish Civil War in 1936) and earns points / money to buy and equip later fighters in the "Tech Tree".
The choices get to be rather fanciful especially at the higher Tech Levels with aircraft that belonged more in Luftwaffe 1946 and Luftwaffe Pilots' fantasies.
Many of these "Tech Trees", especially in WoWP simply do not make sense and have almost no connection with history.
...Or does it make more sense to condemn a Japanese Carrier pilot to flying nothing more advanced than the A6M5 ReiSen as was the case historically (off of non-existent Japanese Carriers).

On some of these message boards, I also came across discussions that sounded quite well reasoned if most of the research was done in an Elementary School Library. To back up some claims, there was plenty of "information" presented that was simply wrong or had no bearing on the discussion. As is the case with computers, when Garbage goes in, the output is usually Garbage as well. One has to wonder at the conclusions from these discussions and how very similar "scientific" analyses may have made the FW 190 such a cripple. One has to wonder how many other aircraft (especially Japanese) have been "Nerfed" (the other fellow's term) in a similar manner without people realizing it because the information matches the most common (and typically incorrect) books?

This brings me finally to the point of this posts:
I and I believe most of the folks who design for CFS build an aircraft project pretty much in a vacuum. We try to get the flight performance and weaponry "correct" so that the relative strengths and weaknesses are as WE PERCEIVE they were historically. We leave the scenarios for using the aircraft to mission builders.
I for one don't concern myself with the actual historical context of how the aircraft was actually used or what other factors made it a success of failure. (Superiority of one side's pilots, better maintenance, greater numbers, tactical situation, etc.)

....So....
Does it bother anyone that depending on the country you choose to fly for (I build and fly for all of them), that you may have NO good aircraft to choose from? (Italians were pretty hopeless for late war fighters.) Does it bother anyone that every single German pilot that you meet online will be flying either a FW 190D or a Me 109K or even a Me 262? How about a virtual RAF that flies nothing but Griffon Spitfires and Tempests? How about a US Navy that flies only F4U-4 Corsairs or <cough> F8F Bearcats?

What do you do when Game Balance becomes more important that realistic simulation? How many of us can recognize when this is happening and what do we do about it?

Thoughts?
- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Sim-aircraft behaviour would need feedback

Hi Ivan, Hi all!
It is an interesting line of thought. I have often wondered how other people feel about the handling qualitites of simulator aircraft built by me, both in normal flight and in combat. How should the aircraft feel? Pilots´reports are not that abundant, and as a builder, and then also as the provider of the .air file, one is confined to one´s own appreciation of what a a certain aircraft´s flying qualities could have been like.
This would be another example of how useful the feedback on the part of simmers who actually fly the models, either in combat or "peaceful" flight, could be to developers.
For my part, I am totally limited to my imagination and own subjective "gut feeling" about an airplane - and worse still, I rather build more than I fly - in fact the only flying I really do is when I´m working on an .air file to try to get performance and manoueverability as right as I can on a model, apart of course from getting the visual model as good as possible from all viewing angles.
So most probably the only way to try to improve the flying qualities of models is a feedback-rich brainstrom or discussion between simmers and modellers!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Interesting Flight dynamics

Hi Ivan, Hi all!


I´m amazed at how versatile CFS1 Flight Dynamics can be. After doing them for a couple of huge, slow, heavy multi-engined old biplanes with their huge wooden propellers, it has been curious to see how a completely different plane and engine also worked out very nicely:
The 1918 Pensuti "Piccolo Triplano", a minuscule short-range ground-troop observer with a wingspan of only 13 ft, powered by a tiny 35 Hp, 3-cylinder Anzani inverted "Y" engine and a 6-ft prop. The corresponding entries into the .air file give the model a very fitting behaviour indeed!
I´m still working on the visual model, but it´s coming out very well.
Here are a couple of sreenshots as appetizers!
I was wondering how to fit weapons to it, as it really didn´t have any...
Could one perhaps perhaps make the pilot fire his handgun at an enemy?
Would anyone agree to this? I wonder.


Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Pensuti Flea

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Your recent projects seem to be pretty popular with the download count.
The obscure Great War era aeroplanes are not my area of interest but that doesn't mean anything because obviously SOMEONE is interested enough to download them. I still have my Albatros D.Va that is sitting in the workshop.....

....So my comment there is: If you have the interest and are building it anyway, why not upload the midget when you are done? Seems like everything else recently has had a pretty good reception.

As stated to this audience many times in the past (not that folks might really care), my interest is in fighters, hunters and not so much in the targets or the hunted. The size of the smaller aircraft also suit my building style more and there are plenty of very famous and deserving aircraft that have never had good treatment in Combat Flight Simulator.

I guess you are finding the potential in CFS that a few of us have been trying to build on for the last few years.
As with my Propeller experiments, moments of inertia and stability stuff, there are plenty of other features in the AIR file that the designers of the AIR file allowed for that the designers of aircraft flight models have not figured out.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan]

Feedback for Simulator Aircraft

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I think I mentioned very early on in our emails that feedback from the general population is extremely rare, but you already knew that.

Feedback from our peers, especially our dear friends here is actually often quite good.
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforu...99-Mitsubishi-A6M2-Model-21-and-A6M3-Model-22

Note especially Post #18 from Hubbabubba.
A summary of opinions from multiple virtual pilots is more than I would have expected and Hubbabubba's impressions of the Zero were pretty much in line with what I was trying to achieve.

Feedback though was not really the point I was trying to make:
The discussion was really about the simulator versus gaming aspect of online play.
The fur ball that Hubbabubba described is not as common as it should be.
That would be as close to a multi player simulation as we can realistically get.

The reality of online play as we see in the WoWP and War Thunder has very little to do with simulations and much more to do with people online wanting the hottest aeroplane they can get. The current method of preventing a game of all 1945/46/47 era aircraft is to make the gamers EARN their mounts through game "experience". The consequence is seeing Japanese biplanes meeting Heinkel 51s online.

So again, what are y'all's opinions on simulations versus game balance?
How do you balance a game with "Tech Trees" when some Tech Trees never get very far and are not competitive?
The Imperial Japanese Navy for example never fielded a carrier fighter hotter than the Type Zero which was really competitive only against early war types.
The Italian Air Force never had a hotter aircraft than the Veltro or Centauro which were competitive at best with mid-war types of other nations.
Do you instead have every online player flying for either the Luftwaffe, USAAF, or RAF or try to balance the game at the expense of something else?

- Ivan.