Storm of War Teamspeak

Rise of Flight air modelling

For the discussion of 1C's Battle of Stalingrad, Moscow, Kuban and Bodenplatte etc.

Rise of Flight air modelling

Postby Admin (Dietrich) » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:16 pm

Over the the IL-2 forums, Manu found and commented on a couple of videos promoting Rise of Flight. The thread got locked immediately. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/32 ... ting-il-2/

Here are the videos:





I don't know why the thread got locked down. Yeah, the official reason was "no time"... fine, but I don't know what that resulted in a lock. I think those RoF videos are impressive. And if such modelling is in IL-2, that would be great. Generally speaking, I think the modelling in RoF is second-to-none. Remember also that these videos date back to 2010. The damage modelling continues amaze me... there are so many ways fragments can be strewn all of the place, from splintered timber to flaps of torn canvas.

A believe me... I have scratched a lot of aircraft!
Image
User avatar
Admin (Dietrich)
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:09 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Rise of Flight air modelling

Postby Hiromachi » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:13 pm

It got locked because it called for advertising in form of creating a videos like that but in Il-2.
This engine was used as basis for Il-2 but in todays form its more sophisticated and complex. I'd honestly like videos like this to promote quality of the product but if it would cause any delays than we can skip them.
User avatar
Hiromachi
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:46 am

Re: Rise of Flight air modelling

Postby Admin (Dietrich) » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:39 pm

Hiromachi wrote:This engine was used as basis for Il-2 but in todays form its more sophisticated and complex.


I'm not sure what "sophisticated and complex" means. It is not necessarily the same as "accurate", which is what we are after.

I wonder if the reluctance to engage in the discussion is because of a move from a physical to a parametric model. As I'm spending more and more time in IL-2:BoX, I'm starting to come up against the limits of the engine, which seems not as convincing as the RoF one. This, however, could simply be due to the different speeds and structures of the aircraft involved. The recent BoBo announcement of high-speed fighters will certainly push the limits. And, if this is in the same engine as Flying Circus 1 (FC1; the RoF remake), it will be very interesting to see how it handles.

I recall the fuss about IL-2:BoS in comparison to CloD. CloD's physics is very good, even though the rest of it is riddled with bugs. No doubt when FC1 comes out there will be a lot of scrutiny between the two.
Image
User avatar
Admin (Dietrich)
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:09 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Rise of Flight air modelling

Postby Hiromachi » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:13 am

It means it has more features and gives better tools to work with for a person creating a new flight model. Yes, it is also more precise. It has to be since we combat even at altitudes of 20,000 - 30,000 ft, which is beyond ceiling of ww1 biplanes.
User avatar
Hiromachi
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:46 am

Re: Rise of Flight air modelling

Postby Admin (Dietrich) » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:36 pm

Hiromachi wrote:It means it has more features and gives better tools to work with for a person creating a new flight model.


Fair enough.


Hiromachi wrote:Yes, it is also more precise.


Still, "precise" is not the same as "accurate" :roll:

To illustrate what I'm getting at, consider the number pi = 3.141592654...

  • A second-order Leibnitz series is "complex and sophisticated", but gives 3.4666..., which is not particularly accurate.
  • The value 4.00000000000 is highly "precise", but it less accurate.
  • The value 3.14 is neither complex, sophisticate nor precise, but it is by far the most "accurate" value.

I don't care how they get to their result... the only thing that I care about is if BoX can accurately model real-life flight characteristics of their aircraft.

Hiromachi wrote:It has to be since we combat even at altitudes of 20,000 - 30,000 ft, which is beyond ceiling of ww1 biplanes.


Yesterday I flew a Ju 52 most of the evening at about 100m. But later I was flying a DFW CV. at 2500m. I obviously have it wrong! :lol:
Image
User avatar
Admin (Dietrich)
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:09 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Rise of Flight air modelling

Postby Hiromachi » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:01 pm

I had 2 days ago a fight with a cocky 109 G-2 pilot who thought he can just B&Z me. Our combat started at aprox. 7000 ft and continued far over 20,000 ft. Combat in Il-2 above those altitudes is rate, but that doesnt mean various effects are not existing in this different environment.

Anyway, its all game of words. None of us had access to this engine and none of us knows what it allows to do.
User avatar
Hiromachi
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:46 am

Re: Rise of Flight air modelling

Postby Admin (Dietrich) » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:02 pm

Hiromachi wrote:I had 2 days ago a fight with a cocky 109 G-2 pilot {...}


Er... are there other types of 109 pilots? :?


Hiromachi wrote:Anyway, its all game of words. None of us had access to this engine and none of us knows what it allows to do.


Not quite.

True, we don't have access to the engine code. However, we can test it against known parameters and independently modelled situations. This can also be cross-checked against technical manuals and historical references. E.g. No-one had access to the game engine when the FW190 flight-model issues were being raised.
Image
User avatar
Admin (Dietrich)
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3496
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:09 pm
Location: Finland


Return to IL2 Battle of "X" series

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron