From: ptran@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Phat H Tran)
Subject: Re: Chuck Yeager Rating
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 05:13:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.004150.20825@newshost.lanl.gov> masten@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Masten) writes:
>In article <BuGEBB.Byr@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> ptran@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Phat H Tran) writes:
>>
>>What does it matter that the planes fly differently if none of them 
>>fly like a plane should?  I don't know if you've read my bashing-
>>to-end-all-bashing of CYAC's flight model, but in two words, It Sucks!
>>FS4 and F3 are about neck and neck in terms of flight model fidelity.
>>Then would come *some* Microprose sims, then Dynamix's RB and AOTP,
>>then the other Micropose sims.  EA's offerings aren't worth mentioning.
>
>Simple, I don't agree :-)
>I could counter, what difference does it make if it has a good flight
>model if Helicopters go 1000 knots.  Then again, how good could the
>flight model be if helos can do this?  But I won't :-)  I already said
>F3 has the best model. BTW, the copters are better behaved in OFT.
>
>CYAC's model simply isn't as bad as you make out.  If I recall, the only
>beef you had which I thought was major was the integer G-limits (which I
>had previously mentioned).  

Actually, the G readout was a very minor gripe, but it clearly showed the
game's ad hoc approach to simulation.  BTW, those G readouts mean NOTHING.
They make absolutely no sense, and are only there for decoration.  Upside-
down, the reading is still 1.0 G, instead of -1.0 G.  During loops,
inverted loops, turns, etc., the G's are all wrong with respect to where
the earth is in relation to you.  Bigger beefs were the game's neglect
of lift factors and stall conditions.  I don't know what CYAC is modelling,
but it isn't flight as physicists know it.

>OK, AOA considerations aren't there, but I
>don't find them as vital as Gary does. 

AOA is *very* important in flight.  Especially in jets with symmetric
wings where the deflection of air due to AOA is a major contributor
of lift.
 
>As to things like unrealistic
>landing, for God's sake, it's a *combat* sim! And F3 lets you land
>anywhere without crashing.  

Landing is probably the most difficult part of flight to simulate
accurately, since it involves very low airspeeds and high AOA.  Landing
anywhere without crashing is not a problem with the flight model.  It's
trivial to detect if you've touched down on grass or on asphalt, and
then to destruct or not to destruct the plane as necessary.  

>I'll admit, I love the way the AOA comes
>into play in landing in F3.
>
>F3 fails somewhat in modelling other planes.  Yes, I don't really care
>if they aren't using the same flight model as your F16.  But get the
>parameters right so when I fly against a Mig19, Mig25, I have the
>advantage (besides for my natural superior ability :-)).  I could live
>without it, but its noticeably missing.
>
>Last BTW:  F3 takes a half-step back (with 2-3 steps forward) in OFT
>with complex flight G-limits of +9.9 to -9.9 G's.  How'd they screw this
>up?  No big deal, but still, its there.
>

It's not impossible to pull +9.9 or more G's in an F-16.  I'm not sure
about that -9.9 G's, but the limit of -3.0 (or was it -4.0) G's in
3.0D is less realistic.  There is really no hard limit as to what G's
you can pull.

Phat.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games