Conspicuous by Their Absence

[aleatorylamp]

Realism and Playability

Hi Ivan, Hi all!
Yes, I´m very happy indeed that my models are meeting with such good acceptance in SOH! Thank you for your motivating comment! This is also largely due to your, Smilo´s and Hubbahubba´s support in guiding me towards finding interesting solutions to the different problems that come up since I´ve started upgrading my models for CFS1. It´s nicely refreshing to see that a lot can still be done to keep CFS1 as an attractive simulator for which add-ons are interesting!

I´ll upload the Pensuti Piccolo Triplanino as soon as it´s finished, as it is quite an extraordinary piece of old-time engineering, down-scaled from the huge Caproni multi-engined triplane bombers Ca-40, 41 and 42.

As I am more of a builder than a flyer, I´m afraid that with respect to the aspect of realism in games vs. simulators, I can only really say that if the main thing is playability, then I would expect realism to fall back into a secondary plane, whereas for a simulator, realism is of course much more important, so in games the player would know he´s in a game, I suppose, with a convenient illusion of realism to make things more exciting.

As for realism with respect to what kind of aircraft would be fighting each other in a historical context, this is an even more difficult question to comment on. Who would want to face an enemy if the outcome of the confrontation is determined by the historical data as regards effectivity and performance of the aircraft in question? Probably only conveniently chosen aircraft with equivalent chances of victory or survival would be attractive.
Here we would probably be talking about fictitious confrontations.
I mean, who would want to pilot an airship and be attacked by biplane fighters with incendiary bullets?

Now, when it comes with CFS1, this is a realistic simulator that is to be played as a game too! ...so here we have a question as regards how exactly simmers expect a given plane to be flown so as to be attractive in a game, and how much realism its performance should retain. Fortunately, the .air and Dp files can be tweaked to suit an individual simmer´s expectations!

Anyway, I hope you all have a nice Sunday!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Not Quite as Democratic

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Perhaps I am just not quite as Democratic or have as much faith as you do.
Being able to modify your DP file or AIR file to suite yourself may be a nice feature to have, but I have no faith in most folks doing any modifications in this area.

I simply don't believe most folks would spend the time doing the research for good data to put there OR in regards to flight models, have enough knowledge of how to change things to get the effects they are trying for.
On the other hand, I knew very little when I first started and screwing things up is not necessarily a bad way to learn.
I will be the first to admit that everything I have ever done is really a Work In Progress and inaccurate as soon as I find a better way of doing things.

As for fair fights, History is full of unfair fights. If you are trying to understand why things turned out as they did, then your simulation should be as fair as the historical battle at least as far as equipment is concerned.
I wonder if there is tendency to "juice up" the aircraft of a country with less advanced technology?
How many folks would resist the urge to cheat and improve the performance of their online mount?

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

To arm or not to arm, that is the question!

Hi Ivan,
Interesting thoughts, both on the historical aspect and on the players´ability to tweak the parameters or blatantly cheat! - quite apart from the hidden and sinister wheeling and dealing that provoked all the wars in the first place, without which we would probably have less technology...

Any experimentation with .air and Dp files is fun an exciting. It´s a part of human behaviour, with the reward of satisfaction if successful. I can only encourage it, even though for my part, my experience is rather limited.

Anyway, how far can a corrective adjustment on the Dp files or on the .air file be undertaken without being unfair to the opponent? For serious combat competitions, this would require a certain board of vigilance to maintain fairness. Too complicated, I suppose, and I would expect that in this case, a given group of simmers who were to compete would most probably reach an agreement amongst themselves.

Now, I have a dilema related to historical reality and simming playability for my new Pensuti Flea:

This was a light, nimble, short-range ground-troop observation plane, without armament, but for the sake of the simmers, I was playing with the idea of fitting it with a light machine-gun on the upper wing, with 1000 rounds and a couple of droppable hand-grenades. What would you think of this?

Of course, historically this would be totally incorrect, as at best the pilot could fire his hand-gun at an enemy or drop a grenade or two, but, as this model is meant for CFS1, there could be a point in favour of arming this beastie.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Sometimes even an "Agreement" and standardization doesn't really work except to ensure that everyone's aircraft has the same kinds of silly things. I can distinctly remember a DP content standard for aircraft weapons that listed ONLY projectile weights for each weapon (CFS Stockers did this too). The interesting thing is that I don't believe anyone besides myself actually noticed this and I only noticed things were wrong a few years after the fact.
The main reason I noticed this was because I load my own ammunition for several calibers of small arms and am very familiar with the weights of various components of the more common rounds.

Actually finding the correct values to use was much tougher than expected and took me a couple years to actually find most of what I needed. The numbers differ a bit depending on the source of information. This was brought up in the FW 190A discussion a while back.

Sometimes there really isn't a "right" answer and it is a matter of making the best guess. The ammunition weight per round on the US .50 Caliber differs a bit depending on the exact date. Earlier ammunition apparently averaged a bit heavier than the later stuff. Aircraft ammunition is usually an assortment of different proportions and types of shells belted together. Usually the muzzle velocity and shell and round weights are not the same, but there is only one number for each value in the DP file.
In this case, I am only pointing out the pitfalls without providing a good solution. I typically go for what I believe is most appropriate hisorically even though there may not be a correct answer.

Regarding the Flea:
Why give it a LMG?
Why not give it a "Pistol"?
Firing rate might be 1 shot every 2 seconds (incredibly slow) with about 1/4 or 1/3 the hitting power of a typical Rifle caliber round.
The firing arcs might also favor the right hemisphere for a pilot shooting with a pistol in his right hand.

There was not much thought that went into this suggestion, so beware!

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Guns and ammo

Hi Ivan,
Yes, it is not only interesting to follow the development of aviation, but also that of armament!
I noticed the discrepancy between older and more recent ammunition weights when I looked up the Parabellum specs for the big old bombers, and there were also even slight variations in dimensions depending on the gun manufacturer, which however did not appear to interfere very much with their use, and some ammunition was almost quite universal.

I like your suggestion of implementing a pistol favouring a right hand side firing arc. Good idea, thanks!
The Pensuti Piccolo Triplanino is almost finished now, and it´s almost like a toy plane to fly! I could see myself making a real one, and I´m quite sure that more than one of us would quite fancy building one in the garage, getting in and buzzing off in it!!

Strangely enough, the triplane is only just under 100% parts count, as the largely straight-line box design has allowed an extensive use of structures. I also found something interesting to do with structures: Their surfaces are less sensitive to slightly concave areas, and even allow cutting-out aileron spaces, which on smoothed components, are partially covered by a texture-triangle bleed. This way, I have been able to build one-piece structures for the wings (the top wing is one whole one!), and have thus largely avoided the annoying shading differences.
It is curious how each model one builds has its own idiocincracies, and some techniques work better than others, depending on the specific shapes needed for the model.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Pensuti "Piccolo Triplanino"

Hi all!

Here´s the link to the tiny 13-ft-wingspan Pensuti Triplane designed by Caproni´s chief test-pilot in 1914, and built in 1918. A few units saw service as short-range ground-troop observers. It was reputedly easy to fly, and despite its 35 hp inverted "Y" 3-cylinder engine, only required a 65-ft take-off run, and had a top speed of 60 mph.
A nice toy! After the war it was used as a sports plane!

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...id=19&id=19722

Tell me if there´s a bug!
I hope you like it.
Enjoy!
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Propeller animation problem

Hi Ivan,
I was wondering if you had encountered the following situation while adjusting the propeller tables:
There comes a point when the transparent prop-disc and the transparent blades are only visible when the engine is idling but disappear at higher revs, and only the revolving blades remain visible. The text gauge doesn´t seem to indicate anything abnormal.
Perhaps you have a comment to this respect?
Thanks in advance for your answer and possible help!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Willy]

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.

Just a little CFS history here. Back in late '98 and '99 when CFS 1 was the hot new sim, what eventually became SOH was Combat Flight Center. We were in tight with the MS team that built CFS and even had a link to us on the MS website for CFS. We soon noted disparities in aircraft performance vs historical records. When asking in private about it, the MS guys owned up to the flight performances of default aircraft were slanted to the Allied side. The German aircraft were intentionally made difficult to fly and fight and the performance of some of the allied aircraft were boosted. This was done for gameplay reasons and because they assumed that most players would want to fly the Allied side. Apparently someone higher up than the design team at MS wanted the Allies to win. Those of us who flew Bf 109s and the Fw 190 just had to get better to win until the add on designers started to fix the issue.

W

 

[aleatorylamp]

Prop animation problem fixed

Hi Ivan,
It took me quite a while, but I managed to find the flaw:
In the Engine Piston Engine (FS98/CFS AI) section, the Maximum Governed RPM seems to need a higher entry than what is sometimes intended. Possibly a minimum is necessary.
The prop animation problem stops when 1920 RPM is entered instead of 1450.
Well, one problem less!
I see you´re progressing with the P38 Lightning! Good show!
Cheers,
Aleatoryblamp

 

[Ivan]

Propeller Animations

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Sorry about not responding sooner. I saw Willy's post but not your post before it.
I wasn't paying much attention to this thread because I have been bit occupied with painting a P-38J.
Your issue doesn't seem to be an exact match to the issue I was describing here, but the solution appears to be similar:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?74310-Propeller-Animations

I started that thread to describe what I had found out in playing around but there didn't seem to be any interest, so I didn't continue the thread. The actual numbers in the Max and Min Governed RPM do not seem to have any effect on anything else. Perhaps there is an effect but I haven't come across it yet.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan]

Just a little CFS history here. Back in late '98 and '99 when CFS 1 was the hot new sim, what eventually became SOH was Combat Flight Center. We were in tight with the MS team that built CFS and even had a link to us on the MS website for CFS. We soon noted disparities in aircraft performance vs historical records. When asking in private about it, the MS guys owned up to the flight performances of default aircraft were slanted to the Allied side. The German aircraft were intentionally made difficult to fly and fight and the performance of some of the allied aircraft were boosted. This was done for gameplay reasons and because they assumed that most players would want to fly the Allied side. Apparently someone higher up than the design team at MS wanted the Allies to win. Those of us who flew Bf 109s and the Fw 190 just had to get better to win until the add on designers started to fix the issue.

W

Thanks for the historical insight, Willy.
I had always thought that the stock aircraft were such poor representations because of a lack of attention to detail and faulty research. I still believe there was a serious lack of attention to detail, but it does seem rather amazing that some of the poor handling was done intentionally. This puts a new meaning to "Game Balance".

Can you also confirm whether my theory that CFS was a pretty quick "Throw Together" product that was done because it didn't require much effort? There are lots of signs that there was not much checking in places before the product was released.

For those of you that haven't been involved with CFS since the beginning, some of the odd characteristics of the stock aircraft are the following:

The P-51D is an amazingly hot aeroplane. One of the reasons might be that it weighs at least a ton less than the real aeroplane. This sounds like the "boost" Willy mentioned.

The Spitfire Mk.IX is about 40 MPH faster than the real thing. It also has a LOT more engine power probably because the engine parameters match a Rolls Royce Griffon more than a RR Merlin. It is actually fairly accurate if one assumes that it is really a Mk.XIV rather than a Mk.IX.

The Hurricane is a much more agile adversary than the real Hurricane Mk.I ever was.

The Me 109G is 90-100 MPH faster than it should be.

The FW 190A handles much much worse than it should. The real aeroplane had an exceptionally fast roll rate but the CFS version is only just fair. The control harmony is poor rather than excellent as it should be. The agility is very bad and climb is poor. I had always thought that this was all because of some sources that list the 190A's climb rate at 2350 FPM rather than near 4000 FPM as it should be and also because people make the assumption that with a small wing, its maximum lift would be very low. The stock aircraft is even worse because not only is the wing small as on the real thing, but its maximum coefficient of lift is very low.

There is certainly much more in the details that we haven't covered here.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Caproni Ca.3 Tri-motor uploaded

Hi all!

I´ve just uploaded a CFS1-upgraded 1916 Caproni Ca.33 tri-motor, twin-boom bomber. It seems to have been a famous machine, for its ruggedness, reliability and performance. It was in production until well after the war, and over 4000 units were built, so it must have been good!

Here´s the link:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/local_links.php?action=jump&catid=19&id=19739

I hope you all enjoy it. Let me know of any bugs, please!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Regarding the Flea:

If you used Components instead of Structures, you would reduce the parts count even more.
You are right that the shading gets strange with a Smooth Component, but I believe that does not happen if your Component is Sharp instead.

Of course you will get a faceted look, but those are the options.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Pensuti Flea

Hi Ivan,
At 93.5 %, there was no parts count problem here. I still had several components and structures free at the end.
Initially I was planning to substitute the wing-structures for components to avoid the differences in shading when structures are joined in the longitudinal axis, but having ample parts count for one-piece sections with cut-outs for ailerons, there was really no need to make the wings as components. The top wing is a one piece structure, so there´s no shading problem.
Normally for this I´d require 4 components designated as Smooth - on the Caproni Ca.3 the wings are components, as I needed all the structures for other things.
Your comment on components being designated as Sharp is interesting.
Designated as Smooth, the texture always fills in a triangle if there is a 90 degree cut-out, so I have to make 2 components. So then with Sharp then, this won´t happen. I´ll have to try that.
Have a nice weekend!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

The shading difference was what I was commenting on. So far you are lucky in that your subjects' wings have no dihedral. I already know that dihedral doesnt work at all with structures. Converting Structures to Components does save Parts and reduce complexity in the coding.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hi Ivan,
Yes, with dihedral it is rather messy using structures for wings because they have to be pushed into position vertically (ughh! I hate pushing things around in AF99). I only use them on perpendicular wings with no dihedral - that way I have more components free for other stuff. Of course, structures are quite expensive on parts, so it also depends on how many parts are left to play with.
One thing I noticed on components when designated as "Collection", is that the degree of complication seems to rocket, but their advantage is the different illumination on the parts making up the component - I like using them for sets of untextured between-wing struts, where each strut has a left and right angled piece.
Anyway, it´s interesting that there are several options available with components, depending on the effect desired.
At the moment I´m polishing up a really wierd plane for CFS1 - the Russian Anadwa-Khioni Nr.4 dual-fuselage light bomber. Here, wing structures have also come in handy, freeing components for elsewhere.
Anyway, we´ll see how it goes. I´ve already been working on the CFS1 .air file for the 9-cyl rotaries.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[aleatorylamp]

Peculiar but effective

Hi everyone,
I´ve just uploaded a peculiar WW1 plane here:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...id=19&id=19755

Joining two single-engined aeroplanes to produce a larger, faster dual-fuselage, twin-engined aircraft was more often than not of limited success. Not so with the Anadwa-Khioni Series of dual-fuselage biplanes, however, which proved to be very effective indeed, and with which to some degree, shortages of the 4-engined bomber Ilya Muromets were met.

These were built by Vassili Nikolayevich Khioni, who had been chief designer at Anatra in Odessa, Ukraine, building variants of French Voisin and German Albatros biplanes.

He joined two Anatra D (also known as Anade) biplanes, coming up with the Anadwa Vkh dual-fuselage biplane. It had two 100 Hp Gnome-Monosoupape rotary engines, and a top speed of 82 mph. Payload was 1300 lb, and there were 3 crew members: Pilot and observer, and a gunner in the top wing-nacelle, with an ample field of fire. It proved to be a manouverable, reliable aircraft, and several units were built.

With the objective of greater effectivity, performance and payload, he employed the more robust fuselages and stronger Salmson engines of the Anatra DS biplane (also known as Anadwa-Salmson or Ansal). This was the Anadwa-Salmson, with a crew of 5: Pilot, Observer and 3 gunners, the extra two sitting in the rear cockpits. Its two 140 hp 9-cylinder Salmson engines conferred a top speed of 87 mph, and payload increased to 1430 lb. Defensive armament was formidable.

It was easy to fly, very manoueverable, and a nimble climber, being regarded by experts as one of the best large Russian aircraft of the time. 60 or 70 units were built, and saw service with both the Imperial Russian Air Service as well as the Bolshevik Army.

I hope you enjoy the plane!
Let me know of any bugs.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

There are plenty of WW2 era aircraft that tried the Siamese Twin approach.
The Me 609, He 111Z and P-82 Twin Mustang come to mind.
My impression was that the idea was to save on the engineering required to design a proper twin.
In the case of the P-82, I believe there really wasn't as much saved because although the shapes were similar, the internals were not even close.
In the case of the Heinkel 111Z, it was a matter of getting enough power to haul a giant glider off the ground and although it was possible to do it with multiple tow planes, it was much more dangerous.

I don't know if one could consider the P-38 Lightning to be a twin of this type. The common theme is that replacing a single central fuselage with two offset fuselages generally resulted in an aircraft that had very poor rolling characteristics. In a bomber or transport this may not be so important, but in a fighter, this was a serious disadvantage. Until boosted ailerons came along, the roll rate of the Lightning was fairly poor and even with the boosted ailerons, the response was described as "peculiar".

I know there are AFXs available for a twin Me 109 and He 111Zwilling but have never cared enough to go build one.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Dual fuselage and dual boom

Hi Ivan,
Yes, there are several examples of successful fuselage pairing. My comment about its limited success relates only to the beginning of these engineering-saving efforts to get stronger and faster planes. At first, not everyone was successful, like Blackburn or Fokker M.7 for example, but there were others. There seem to have been structural complications, which may have been due to the diagonal torsion involved, where the boom moved in opposite directions while turning. Even joining the tailplanes didn´t solve this. I know there was even a twin Fokker Dr.II triplane, but the armistice thwarted its development.

If I undestand correctly, another issue was the rolling axis, which was uncomfortable for the pilot - in some cases they fixed this by making the aircraft roll around the axis of the pilot´s fuselage - much to the discomfort of the other person sitting in the opposite fuselage!!

By the time the twin Mustang appeared, also the Heinkel (with the advantage of a fifth motor here), they seem to have been solved. I suppose the cantilever wing was a crucial factor. The twin Beaver, the twin Piper Cub and the twin Antonov-2 seem to have been remarkably successful too.

I suppose the Lightning is rather more of a twin-boom pane, even if twin-engined, as there was no plane that had one of the booms as a fuselage, wheras the others had fuselages existing on monoplanes. That would also apply to the Porokovschikov, the Otto/AGO series of twin-boom pushers, and some English jets. Cessna had a curious jet here too!

Anyway, as twin-fuselage and also twin-boom planes look quite extraordinary, they make for a nice change to look at!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Single Boom - Single Fuselage

How about this for something interesting to look at?
It was actually a pretty good performer but the engines were in greater demand for other aeroplanes.
I have read a few reports about the aircraft and have never seen anything mentioned about the offset cockpit being disorienting for the pilot.

-Ivan.