Conspicuous by Their Absence

Hello Papingo,

I should have answered yesterday, but didn´t want to butt in. Like Ivan says, bifurcation is a split into two parts. For example, a fork where the flow of programme splits in two: If condition 1 happens, it´ll do A, and if condition 2 happens, it´ll do B.

The second bifurcation would be another split after condition 1 or 2, where another 2 actions would be possible after each one, and this is what the AF99 compiler does not do very well or at all.

It only seems to work works nicely for the first bifurcation, along a linear flow, as Ivan says like a vine, and not a tree with branches branching out from other branches, which would be second and more bifurcations.

Chess programmes use this principle with multiple bifurcations, although nowadays they have a huge look-up table...

I have never used AD2000, but when I did the FSDS tutorial I tried its AF99 AFX import-plug-in, but it converts EVERYTHING into individual parts, so this was of very debatable use because you end up with over 1000 individual parts. I don´t know how AD2000 would do this.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
responce

dear boys (Ivan and A....lamp)
thanks for reply.
Did you see the size of smilo's
ardo mdl--must be a record
****
gotta go
>>papingo
 
Hello Papingo,

I did download and fly Smilo's Arado 196 and flew it around a bit and of course looked over the model from a bunch of angles, but never actually looked at the file sizes. From your comment I gather the MDL file is a bit on the large side? I don't doubt it. There are a lot more polygons than a typical AF99 project.

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Regarding bifurcations, it can be anything. A fork in the road is a bifurcation.

As for AD2000, When Smilo was building his Arado 196 floatplane, I sent him a couple pieces and found out something interesting.
From the limited view from way outside Smilo's development shop, I gather that the order in which the points of a polygon are specified determine the facing. This is a bit of information that AF99 COULD use but does not.
The really interesting thing is that this is part of how SCASM determines facing and is pretty typical for other design programs from what little experience I have with them.
If AF99 used this information, we would be so much better off though a couple of my utilities such Mirror would need to be reworked a bit.
Still, this is a characteristic that the designer could determine much better than a program's automatic functions can.

.....
 
Chess Programming

Regarding Chess Programming.....

I thought this subject deserved its on post so it can more easily be continued or ignored and because it opens a HUGE can of worms.

Back in the late 1980's I actually wrote (most) of a Chess program.
The computer I used started life as a 5-slot IBM PC without a Hard Disk Drive because when it was bought, HDD's for the IBM PC were only 10 MB and cost an extra $1000. They only came on the IBM PC/XT. The PC/AT was very new at the time and was quite a bit more money and my family was on a very restrictive budget.

By the time I wrote the Chess Program, I probably had upgraded the processor to a NEC V-20 which was a pin compatible replacement for the Intel 8088 chip. I may have also put in a 20 or 40 MB "Hard Card" which combined a controller and HDD in the space of a single expansion slot. I know for sure that I was still using IBM's CGA graphics.
Sometime later, this same machine became a 16 MHz Intel 80386 machine with a new "motherboard", memory and processor all on yet another expansion slot.

I decided I wanted to have a Chess Program that I could modify to play "Fairy Chess" (Variations on the game) and so I wrote the program using either Lattice C or Microsoft C. This was back in the days when the sizes of memory "segments" were a distinct limitation.
The default was that each section of project (Program, Data, Stack, and Heap) had to stay under 64K.

[Fast Forward past the major development details]

I learned quite a lot about search trees, "Mini-Maxing", and Alpha-Beta pruning in practice by actually writing this program.

***** Relevant Points are Here *****
The typical search tree for Chess is much more than a bifurcation. It is more like a 35-furcation in the middle game.
Even on the first move, the branching factor is 20 for each side.
The search trees get REALLY BIG really quick.

My program could be tuned for depth of search. I found that I was typically using a 4-ply depth because any more would simply be unplayable in a reasonable amount of time with the processing power that I had.

Depth of search always has to be an even number or silly things like the second half of an exchange would be hidden by the "horizon effect" and cause the program to make really bad choices.
It also helps to be able to determine whether a position was "quiescent" so that it would not try to evaluate a position in the middle of a long exchange. (My program was not sophisticated and did not incorporate this feature.)

Back in those days, because of the fairly shallow searches even on large Chess Computers, and because computers play a rather strange and very materially dominant game, programmers would try to incorporate an "opening book" to skew the evaluations to avoid having a not so sophisticated program get itself into a totally hopeless position.
Life got interesting when the program would get past the opening book (lookup tables) and start to evaluate on its own. It would find a position which was quite reasonable in human terms but that looked poor to its own evaluations and might do silly things to correct the situation.
Heuristics would also cause problems because although they were good in human terms, they might get the computer to do things that its own evaluation would not normally pick and again at some point, it would try to "fix" things.

These days, I don't think a lookup table or opening book is used much if at all. Hardware has increased capabilities tremendously and a simple material (point-count) used on a LOT of leaf nodes I believe is most common.
(My evaluation was based on material (obviously) and on mobility.)

I found that I could beat this program easily when it was set to respond in about 2-5 minutes per move. I am not a particularly strong chess player (probably around a 1650 rating) but quite a bit better than the average person. This program was actually able to beat most beginning chess players among the people I used for testing at a rate of about 2:1 or 3:1.

Regarding why it was only MOST of a Chess Program:
There never was implementation of En Passant, and Castling.
The problem was that for each of these moves, they are really TWO moves in combination and my data structures were never created with that in mind. I knew about this limitation, but to do it differently would have cost me much more memory that I did not believe I had.

....and so was the story of MY Chess Program.
It probably still resides on 5.25 inch Floppy Disk in my archives.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,

Fascinating, how you managed to make an "almost complete" chess programme with the limited resources of the time. I once wrote a checkers programme, which was of course much simpler.

In the 80´s a friend gave me an electronic chess board called Mephisto, and the levels it could play at, were either graded by setting a time for the turn, or by setting its thought depth with a coice of 2 to 10 bifurcations. With a depth of 3 it took about 15 to 20 seconds, and at 4 it was a little over a minute, which was great for playing.

You could also see it think, as it went through each piece to see how it could move it: It would light up the vertical and horizontal coordinates of the piece and the positions it was investigating. It could also suggest moves if you asked for help during your turn. A great example of AI, and I only saw it make stupid mistakes at level 2, unlike other mid-range chess machines of the time that often played strangely at most levels.

This machine did not have a start-game look-up table, but was nevertheless very good. Much better than me, because I only beat it at level 3 most of the times, and only few times at level 4. I must take it out of the box again for a game!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
New Biplane being fitted for CFS1

Hello, hello again,

I´m working on another boxkite, a little known German 1916-1917 twin by the name of Albatross G.III Grosskampfflugzeug - a large battle-plane. I´m upgrading my 2007 version from FS98 to CFS1.

Incidentally, someone who shall not be named from another page which shall not be named stole it and made a CFS2 version without crediting any of the original authors... These things happen...

Anyway, here are a few screenshots. I´m putting in the G.II prototype with 165 hp Benz Bz.III engines as well as the G.III with its 230 hp Benz G.IV engines. All the air file work done in the last year with Ivan on the different sized engines and propellers comes in very handy now - it´s all done!

Apparently the Albatros G.III was faster and more manoueverable than all the other Grossflugzeuge of the time.
The shape is also very appealing, gently curved even though it had a box cross section.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 

Attachments

  • Albatross GII Screenshot.jpg
    Albatross GII Screenshot.jpg
    40.3 KB · Views: 0
  • Albatross GIII Screenshot.jpg
    Albatross GIII Screenshot.jpg
    63 KB · Views: 0
Ivan said:
Hi No Dice,

What exactly is an ACT Data Fix?

- Ivan.
Click to expand...

hello Ivan and all,
as i recall ad2002 had an issue compiling a mdl.
the ACT Data Fix solved the problem.
A.C.T. was the name of the group
that developed ad2k and ad2002

btw...many thanks for the kind comments
regarding the work done on the ar196.
too true, the model was very complex.
i often wondered what the limits could be,
but, was never able to reach said limits.
i also wondered how the model affected
slower machines.
is it a framerate killer?...most likely.
 
"Incidentally, someone who shall not be named from another page which shall not be named
stole it and made a CFS2 version without crediting any of the original authors... These things happen..."

greetings Stephan,
while it's true, these things happen,
stealing another's work is frowned upon.
i would suggest posting the perpetrator's name
and the "page" where your work is offered.
i'm not saying anything will be done about it,
but, i for one would like to know who this ahole is.
 
smilo,

Who and what website ?

"Incidentally, someone who shall not be named from another page which shall not be named
stole it and made a CFS2 version without crediting any of the original authors... These things happen..."

I have been around long enough and know enough people, Let's just shut them down.

Dave
 
Plagiary

Hello Smilo and Dave,

Thank you for your support on this issue.
OK, so it is better not to just accept it and stay quiet, so I WILL mention the culprit:

The plane is on the ABSquad page, and does not include any credit for the original authors of the plane or the AFX files from which the guy made a modification for CFS2.It is easy to see that he has plagiarized the model and has unfairly taken credit for himself. This is to be seen in the .air file content, panel, sounds, textures and colours on the screenshot. Even the title is the same! Then he took out the readme I had in it, and also put his name into the panel .cfg. I had put in disclaimers and copyright texts for the model and also for the AFX.

The web page is: http://www.absquad.net/cfs2_absquad_wolrd_war_1.htm

The text on the page next to the plane is as follows:
CFS2 AB-Albatros G.II (848KB). Prototype of the Albatros G.III, a very little known medium sized tactical bomber biplane produced by Albatros Flugzeugwerke of Johannisthal, Berlin. By: AB_Lt_Cmd_Riker.

Behind the pseudonym AB_Lt_Cmd_Riker is the webmaster and "author", a Mr. Michael Priester,
whose e-mail is michael.priester@comcast.net

I wrote him an e-mail a few days ago complaining about his not very honourable way of taking credit for other people´s work, but of course he hasn´t answered.

Thanks again for your support!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

This fellow did the same to me a few years back.

There seems to be something wrong with his CFS1 page at the moment or I would include some links to my own projects that he has claimed as his own.

One of the good things is that he has a tendency to pick some generally nice projects that might otherwise not get publicity otherwise.
I found a few models mostly by Japanese authors that I had not found elsewhere on the ABSquad site.
It is amazing how prolific he would be if he actually even built 1/10 of what he claims are his own projects. As it is, I am sure he has built absolutely none of them.
It is quite amazing how such as A$$H0LE can make such claims about honour and have so little of it himself. I wonder if he winces every time he even thinks of the words honour, courage, and all the other crud he posts.
The only nice thing about his site is the genuinely nice stuff he chooses to steal.

I had an email exchange with him a few years back.....
He even acknowledged my ownership of a couple of the projects and promised to fix the credits. Of course he never did.

Hubbabubba executed a rather embarrassing "Sting" operation on him a few years back. Although there was probably some minor embarrassment on his side, nothing really ever came of it.

- Ivan.
 
Hello Ivan,

I think it´s a flaw in human nature, perhaps to do with the survival of the fittest, but applied to the sense of achievement in this case, so that the person in question feels to be someone, as opposed to being nothing.

I don´t think this kind of person ever feels embarrassed about anything. We tend to look at them through our prespective, when theirs is totally different. They like to get away with whatever they can at the expense of others, and feel a sense of achievement when they sucessfully trick or rip someone off, or steal something. If caught out, they are very apologetic, polite, and seemingly cooperative, but that´s only out of cowardice - words to avoid confrontation!

A large part of modern society actually thinks that this kind of action is cleverness, and confuse it with fighting the establishment and the oppresive oligarchy. In countries like Spain, if you get caught cheating in an exam, you may get a zero, but not necessarily. Peers will regard it as being clever! In Britain, however, you get a zero, and the third time, you get expelled.

Corrupt politicians are another example of this kind of dishonesty, and it often extends into a free for all for a long time until some of them get landed in jail. They never give anything back, though... They don´t care anyway, because they see the war-mongering power-groups, ruthlessly acting in their own interests all the time, regardless of the human suffering caused.

One can always think that Karma will catch up with them one day, or that they will eventually learn what to do and noto to do, even if it is not in this life, but enough philosophy for this morning!

Building airplanes is better!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
The lesser of evils

Hello!

My progress on the Albatross G.2/3 large battle-plane has come to a point of battling bleedthrough with different approaches, none of which is perfect. In this case, there is no difference in having animated surfaces or not, because of the excessive number of parts to be glue-sequenced in the tail groups. To prevent bleeds with the fuselage and wings, the the pusher props, and consequently the rear gunner and gun, must be placed in the tail groups, apart from the normal tail-assembly elements, which here also have two lateral tail struts. So it´s not a very straight forward ensemble.

However, as there is considerable distance between the tail assembly and the pusher-props, rear gunner and gun AF99 seems to cope quite well in separating the display for the different elements, and there are only short minor bleeds when viewing from directly behind.

Several different alternative groupings undertaken in several days give worse results, so I´ve come to a point of the best possible result, and the minor bleeds will not hamper the model so much as to prevent its upload!

So, now I´m doing the virtual cockpits - and for the moment, here are some more screenshots! In a few days I hope to have the model ready for upload.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 

Attachments

  • Albatros-rear1.jpg
    Albatros-rear1.jpg
    67.8 KB · Views: 0
Hello Aleatorylamp,

I actually don't necessarily want the ABSquad site to go away (strangely enough).
The site hosts quite a few things that simply cannot be found elsewhere.

The majority of people who are not quite as well connected as we are in this enthusiasts forum would never figure out that Michael Priester is such a phony. I believe that is his audience. Most of us here know better.
One does have to wonder how someone can live with himself knowing that he is a simple thief and unable to actually create any of the things he claim as his own work. ...But as you said, this fellow obviously doesn't share the same values.

You certainly are quite prolific with the Great War Aeroplanes.

- Ivan.
 
Hi Ivan,

Well, at least there is some use to be had from this phony´s website, and its flaw is another example of a lesser evil!

Anyway... Planes of the Great War: I have always found old biplanes fascinating, especially the bing ones. Not many modellers build these slow multi-engine biplane bomber, probably because there are too many struts and wires, and some elements are located in strange positions, and this adds difficulty to building the model. So, I thought here´s a niche where I can quietly do my thing.

While I know that general interest for these models is somewhat limited, probably for performance reasons, there is an adventurous atmosphere I like about them. The fact that a lot of them flew well was a tremendous engineering feat.

If a new model was actually able to fly reasonably, it was already a merit in itself, as not all of them did. A lot of experimentation was going on, and in a matter of months or even weeks after the prototype trials, new versions came out with notable improvements, possibly leading to a production batch. It must have been a fascinating time, with lots of room for inventiveness, even though test pilots flew these machines at the risk of their lives.

The development history of a lot of these models is in fact quite interesting, and the Albatros "G" type battle-plane is a good example:

The Albatros factory was having great success with its nimble fighter biplanes, but there was a need for armed bombers with capacity for large payloads. Hardly anyone had built any, so in 1915 the Albatros factory based a design on the 4-engined Ilya Murometz, and came out with its 4-engined Albatros G.I prototype (4x100Hp Mercedes DI). Unfortunately, performance was far from satisfactory, and the design was abandoned.

Shortly afterwards, in 1916, they made a 2-engined prototype, the first G.II. The more powerful 165 Hp Benz Bz.III engines and the lighter airframe made for a much better aircraft, but its wide wings not only reduced the rear gunner´s visibility, but forced a rather aft-placing of the engines because of the pusher-props, causing CoG problems which made the plane very tail-heavy. For approach and landings, constant forward helm was required, and flaring was was forbidden, so a heavy "Stossfahrgestell" nose landing-gear (shock-landing gear in German!) was installed to prevent nose-overs! Some stop-gap inventiveness!

Although why they insisted on using pusher engines, remains a mystery to me. Perhaps it was inherited from the cleaner single-engined pushers that kept pilots´ goggles free of castor oil...

Anyway, the design was nevertheless good enough as to allow for improvements: Intelligent and practical inventiveness: They cut away the lower-wing trailing edge to move the engines forward, making room for the propellers, thus eliminating the CoG problem - and also the heavy "Stossfahrgestell" nose-gear. Then, they also cut away the central top-wing trailing edge to improve the gunner´s field of view.

In spite of retaining the Benz Bz.III engines, the single prototype improved tremendously, and led to a reduced production batch in 1917 of the Albatros G.III, which was given the more powerful 230 hp Benz Bz.IV engines and saw service in Macedonia. The prototype was subsequently also put into military use. The Albatros G.III was in fact faster and easier to fly than the rest of the more famous German Grossflugzeuge, and was an example of a clean, elegant and noteworthy well-functioning design.

Anyway, those were other times!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

It seems like the "limited interest" you described is actually more than the interest in my more modern projects.
I personally don't have a great interest in bombers or "Targets" in general.
As you already know, I have released exactly ONE aeroplane from the Great War. My Albatros D.Va has been awaiting its Lozenge paint and flight model for years.

These days, I have to carefully choose the aeroplanes I work on because of time and other constraints.
I generally don't pick a subject unless I would like to have one of my own or if there is some aspect about it that I would like to test as with the P-3 Orion. The Me 109E was supposed to be just a short diversion for the good of the community. I seriously miscalculated the time required for that one.

I think there was a lot less engineering for aeroplanes in the Great War; I am convinced that they were generally designed by eyeball.

Regarding ABSquad, their CFS1 site appears to be down. Although I didn't like what Priester was doing, I do still miss the site because of the other cool things he hosted.

- Ivan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top