25.10.2009, 17:09
Paulo, it doesn't quite work that way. Please don't take this the wrong way but here's a little insight into the fm's of this simulation. For that matter this applies to all current flight simulations.
Some of the "real world" factors don't survive in the fm and emd's. You must remember that this simulation is coded to work with computers from now and back 10 years. If every known factor of aerodynamics, both aircraft and environment, was modeled with 100% real world data you would need the worlds most powerful computer to fly a single aircraft in a blue screen environment let alone multiple airplanes in a swirling dog with decent graphics. And, you would probably only get 1 frame per second if you were lucky. Also, unless you fully understand the implications of how the emd's and fm's work together it would be pointless to post the data without someone getting into a lengthy explanation of why certain variables were edited the way they were to achieve the desired result. Yes, there are some here who would understand most of the aerodynamic variables but I would venture to guess that the vast majority would not. They just want the aircraft to "perform" like the real plane.
I fly real full motion simulators for recurrent training every year and have spoken with the technicians that not only work on them but also the guys that build and program them. Even these cutting edge full size simulators cannot model every aerodynamic variable, due to computing power, and have to have "edited" real world variables to achieve the desired result and their graphics totally suck compared to what we get in this W.W. II sim and they cost millions of dollars. Until we have computers 1000x more powerful than we do now, every sim for at least the next 20 years will have to make compromises somewhere along the way. To Oleg's credit, he chose a very good path to simulate the feel of flight while minimizing the strain on computers even 10 years ago. Yes some sims have more complex fm's but do they play as well with the same graphic detail and amount of objects?
So, we start with 100% real world data for the factors that are available to be modeled then as few are edited as little as possible to achieve the real world result. What this means is if the aircraft performs as close as the game code allows to real world performance, then don't worry about what's in the fm/emd files.
A much better question would be: Does the airplane perform like it's real world model? Before you even ask this question do you have the data to even make the comparison?
If the airplane in question doesn't "feel" right, or "perform" right then quantify your observation and bring it to the attention of the person that created the fm. I'm sure they would explain why their aircraft performs the way it does. But be warned, if you can't quantify your observation with facts then don't bother.
Cheers,
BBury
Some of the "real world" factors don't survive in the fm and emd's. You must remember that this simulation is coded to work with computers from now and back 10 years. If every known factor of aerodynamics, both aircraft and environment, was modeled with 100% real world data you would need the worlds most powerful computer to fly a single aircraft in a blue screen environment let alone multiple airplanes in a swirling dog with decent graphics. And, you would probably only get 1 frame per second if you were lucky. Also, unless you fully understand the implications of how the emd's and fm's work together it would be pointless to post the data without someone getting into a lengthy explanation of why certain variables were edited the way they were to achieve the desired result. Yes, there are some here who would understand most of the aerodynamic variables but I would venture to guess that the vast majority would not. They just want the aircraft to "perform" like the real plane.
I fly real full motion simulators for recurrent training every year and have spoken with the technicians that not only work on them but also the guys that build and program them. Even these cutting edge full size simulators cannot model every aerodynamic variable, due to computing power, and have to have "edited" real world variables to achieve the desired result and their graphics totally suck compared to what we get in this W.W. II sim and they cost millions of dollars. Until we have computers 1000x more powerful than we do now, every sim for at least the next 20 years will have to make compromises somewhere along the way. To Oleg's credit, he chose a very good path to simulate the feel of flight while minimizing the strain on computers even 10 years ago. Yes some sims have more complex fm's but do they play as well with the same graphic detail and amount of objects?
So, we start with 100% real world data for the factors that are available to be modeled then as few are edited as little as possible to achieve the real world result. What this means is if the aircraft performs as close as the game code allows to real world performance, then don't worry about what's in the fm/emd files.
A much better question would be: Does the airplane perform like it's real world model? Before you even ask this question do you have the data to even make the comparison?
If the airplane in question doesn't "feel" right, or "perform" right then quantify your observation and bring it to the attention of the person that created the fm. I'm sure they would explain why their aircraft performs the way it does. But be warned, if you can't quantify your observation with facts then don't bother.
Cheers,
BBury