-Accurate- FS for WW2 aircraft?
jd9...@my-dejanews.com
"combat" - in fact, I'd prefer they weren't, but if that's what there is,
then that's fine.
In particular, I'm looking for flight-sims that'll handle the Mosquito, the
Lancaster, the Spitfire and/or the Hurricane, with that as the order of
preference, if there are any single-aircraft flight-sims for any of those.
I know there are aircraft models for all of those for Microsoft's Flight
Simulator, but I have not the foggiest how accurate the models are, or how
well Flight Simulator handles aircraft designs that were certainly not part
of it's original design. Anyone know?
Finally, if anyone's bothered to read this far, if there simply isn't anything
out there that'll do what I want, I know there's a "Free Software" flightsim -
FlightGear, which can be "readily" (read: with difficulty) modified, but I've
no idea how accurate the physics is in it, and haven't the foggiest where to
look for enough information to program FlightGear to model any of the above
aircraft. Again, can anyone help with this?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Brett I. Holcomb
The model in FS98 depends on who did it. Some are very good, some are very
bad. I'd try some and see if it the model is "good" according to you.
--
Brett I. Holcomb
bhol...@R777cableone.net
Microsoft MVP
AKA Grunt<><
ICQ 1750477
Remove R777 to reply
<jd9...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7gni7t$prg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
Wells Sullivan
best flight modelling of any sim out there right now and it models over 50
aircraft of all types! It is an online sim, but you can fly offline as well and
do combat against the 'drones' or just learn to fly the planes!
Billy Verreynne
>Are there any accurate flight sims for WW2 aircraft? They don't have to be
>"combat" - in fact, I'd prefer they weren't, but if that's what there is,
>then that's fine.
I'm sure you will have some FS98'ers and CFS'ers responding, so let me punt
the sim I fly - X-Plane. :-)
You can get a demo version from http://www.x-plane.com and download a bunch
of warbirds from the Aircraft Registry at http://pc38.seva.net/~registry
I can go on in great boring detail as to why X-Plane is a unique sim and
IMHO the best GA sim on the market at the moment. But I will spare you
that.. Not that this posting is by any means small in nature... :-)
Any questions about X-Plane, please feel free to fire away.
>In particular, I'm looking for flight-sims that'll handle the Mosquito, the
>Lancaster, the Spitfire and/or the Hurricane, with that as the order of
>preference, if there are any single-aircraft flight-sims for any of those.
Er.. that and more.. you did have to ask... didn't you... ;-)
Avro Lancaster B.1 (RAF 1944)
Bell P-39A Airacobra
Bell P-63C Kingcobra
Boeing B17
de Havilland Hornet F mk 3
de Havilland Mosquito NF mk XV
deHavilland Mosquito Mk.VI (RAF Coastal Command)
Douglas A-26B Invader
Douglas SBD-5 Dauntless (USN 1943)
Fieseler Fi-156 Storch
Focke Wolf Ta152C (Luftwaffe Experimental)
Grumman F4f Wildcat/Martlet
Grumman F6F Hellcat (US Navy)
Grumman F7F Tigercat
Hawker Hurricane MkII (6 Squadron)
Heinkel He219 (Luftwaffe 1944)
Howard DGA-11 (1938)
Howard DGA-6 Mr. Mulligan (1935 Bendix)
Lockheed 10-E Electra (1938)
Lockheed Constellation (L-1049G TWA)
Lockheed Hudson Mk VI (RAF Coastal Command)
Lockheed P-38F Lightning
Martin B-26B Marauder
Messerschmitt ME-410A (1943 Luftwaffe)
North American B-25 (models A, C and J)
North American P-51 Mustang (Models A and D)
North American SNJ-4 Texan (Navy Trainer)
Northrop P-61B (USAF 1945)
Republic P-47D-5 (USAF 1944)
Supermarine Spitfire (models MK IIA, IX, IXC and XII-22)
Westland Lysander
Westland Whirlwind (RAF 1941)
There's also some experimental planes from the Luftwaffe that never made it
off the drawing board (look in the UFO section of the Registry) - very
interesting planes to fly...
>I know there are aircraft models for all of those for Microsoft's Flight
>Simulator, but I have not the foggiest how accurate the models are, or how
>well Flight Simulator handles aircraft designs that were certainly not part
>of it's original design. Anyone know?
X-Plane models the "pieces" that makes up an aircraft. It for example breaks
the right wing into 4-8 pieces and uses the airfoils assigned to the wing
tip and wing root to calculate the airflow and drag. Same type of thing with
the the vertical stab, fuselage, engine pylons and so. Then it piece the
various forces together and then calculate the "response" of the plane. So
X-Plane is not limited to a specific type of plane, but can fairly
accurately simulate everything from a single prop taildragger to a 4 jet
engine heavy.
>Finally, if anyone's bothered to read this far, if there simply isn't
anything
>out there that'll do what I want
Hey, seeing that you waded thru what I posted this far, I will reply! :-)
Depends on what you want to do. X-Plane has 3 add-ons. World Maker is the
DEM editor that allows you to edit the scenery and add custom scenery, 3D
custom objects, airports and navaids. Plane Maker and Part Maker are an
engineering type tools for creating planes and helos, and airfoils and
flaps. Most of the NACA and Laminar airfoils have been designed already -
even some supercritical airfoils are available for use if you like to try
your hand at designing heavies.
And the X-Plane designers go to great lenghts to get a very accurate
design - take a look at the Mohawk OV-1B design for example
http://www.relaynet.com/OV1_POH.htm And yes, being slightly insane is a
pre-requisite to be an X-Plane'er. That and the knowledge that we are indeed
superior simmers... <GD&RLH> ;-)
Oh yes, as for Flight Gear - something to keep an eye on without a doubt.
And Curt who runs the Flight Gear project is also a regular on the X-Plane
mailing lists.
clear skies,
Billy
jd9...@my-dejanews.com
"Brett I. Holcomb" <bhol...@R777cableone.net> wrote:
> Try http://www.flightgear.org/.
>
> The model in FS98 depends on who did it. Some are very good, some are very
> bad. I'd try some and see if it the model is "good" according to you.
*G* As I said, I'll try FlightGear, but it doesn't have the aircraft I want,
and there is insufficient information on the Internet (at least, as far as
I've been able to find) to program FlightGear with them.
The same goes for judging if a FS98 model is "good" or not. :) If I don't
have a guide as to what the plane really -would- do under given conditions,
it's not easy to tell if the model is accurate or not. (On the other hand, if
FS98's physics is "idealised" and makes certain assumptions, it's easy to
tell if the model is going to be "bad". If there are any such assumptions
which don't hold, the model can't be accurate, however good the designer
was.)
jd9...@my-dejanews.com
"Billy Verreynne" <vsl...@onwe.co.za> wrote:
> jd9...@my-dejanews.com wrote..
>
> >Are there any accurate flight sims for WW2 aircraft? They don't have to be
> >"combat" - in fact, I'd prefer they weren't, but if that's what there is,
> >then that's fine.
>
> I'm sure you will have some FS98'ers and CFS'ers responding, so let me punt
> the sim I fly - X-Plane. :-)
>
> You can get a demo version from http://www.x-plane.com and download a bunch
> of warbirds from the Aircraft Registry at http://pc38.seva.net/~registry
>
> I can go on in great boring detail as to why X-Plane is a unique sim and
> IMHO the best GA sim on the market at the moment. But I will spare you
> that.. Not that this posting is by any means small in nature... :-)
>
> Any questions about X-Plane, please feel free to fire away.
Thanks for the help! It'll be fun trying to get this to work with NT (DirectX
5 doesn't exist for it :), but I've Windows 95 and CAN run it under that. :)
It looks great, from what I've seen so far!
Brett I. Holcomb
made and compromises made that in the end don't really affect the end
result - it's close enough. Just because "idealizations" are made doesn't
guarantee a bad flight model. I'll admit FS98 (and SPP, and others), for
example, doesn't model the a/c I flew EXACTLY but it does model them well
enough for me to have fun without spending the cash on real airplanes. For
those I haven't flown as long as it's close to what an airplane should do
I'm happy flying the DC-3s and Constellations without worrying that the
flight model is more accurate than real life - most of us wouldn't know
anyway.. If you want a super accurate flight (and other) modeling then
fine - there's nothing wrong with that and there are programs that will let
you have it. However, too many people let the "it's not as realistic as the
real thing according to those who flew it or read about it" argument get in
the way of the fact all they want to do is have fun and the assumptions and
idealisations won't affect them.
There is no "BEST". You need to decide what's best - if you want super
realism then there are sims (X-Plane is supposed to be good in that respect)
that will fill that need. If you want to have fun and can live with some
assumptions and non-ideal modeling there are some that will do that, too.
--
Brett I. Holcomb
bhol...@R777cableone.net
Microsoft MVP
AKA Grunt<><
ICQ 1750477
Remove R777 to reply
<jd9...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7gpmhp$k42$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> In article <7goaf1$kt6$1...@remarQ.com>,
> "Brett I. Holcomb" <bhol...@R777cableone.net> wrote:
> > Try http://www.flightgear.org/.
> >
> > The model in FS98 depends on who did it. Some are very good, some are
very
> > bad. I'd try some and see if it the model is "good" according to you.
>
> *G* As I said, I'll try FlightGear, but it doesn't have the aircraft I
want,
> and there is insufficient information on the Internet (at least, as far as
> I've been able to find) to program FlightGear with them.
>
> The same goes for judging if a FS98 model is "good" or not. :) If I don't
> have a guide as to what the plane really -would- do under given
conditions,
> it's not easy to tell if the model is accurate or not. (On the other hand,
if
> FS98's physics is "idealised" and makes certain assumptions, it's easy to
> tell if the model is going to be "bad". If there are any such assumptions
> which don't hold, the model can't be accurate, however good the designer
> was.)
>
Billy Verreynne
>There is no "BEST". You need to decide what's best - if you want super
>realism then there are sims (X-Plane is supposed to be good in that
respect)
>that will fill that need. If you want to have fun and can live with some
>assumptions and non-ideal modeling there are some that will do that, too.
Very true. X-Plane in not for everyone. Neither is FS98. It depends on
what -you- want from the sim. It's likle asking a person what is the best
movie ever made. Lots of different opinions and viewpoints.
The only pity is that people can not try FS98 before buying as they can
X-Plane and PP98 for example.
regards,
Billy
jd9...@my-dejanews.com
"Billy Verreynne" <vsl...@onwe.co.za> wrote:
> Brett I. Holcomb wrote.....
>
> >There is no "BEST". You need to decide what's best - if you want super
> >realism then there are sims (X-Plane is supposed to be good in that
> respect)
> >that will fill that need. If you want to have fun and can live with some
> >assumptions and non-ideal modeling there are some that will do that, too.
>
> Very true. X-Plane in not for everyone. Neither is FS98. It depends on
> what -you- want from the sim. It's likle asking a person what is the best
> movie ever made. Lots of different opinions and viewpoints.
Ok, I'll agree to what both of you have said. Yes, there is no "best", only
possibly a "best for what I want, right now".
Yes, it's simplistic, but I've a somewhat biased view on sims, and not just
flight sims. For cars, for example, those who've played "Pole Position" are
generally able to tell the difference between that and, say, "Revs". Likewise,
Chuck Yeager's Flight Trainer and Microsoft Flight Simulator were a whole
different kettle of fish to, say, "Double Phantom" or even "Red Arrows",
although the physics in that were excellent.
From the sounds of it, X-Plane has the realism I'm after, and FlightGear is a
possible alternative if I can get the tech info I'd need.
Ron Miller
: From the sounds of it, X-Plane has the realism I'm after, and FlightGear is a
: possible alternative if I can get the tech info I'd need.
It very much depends, as has been said.
I'm running X-Plane and enjoying it very much for lots of reasons but
I'm finding that stall break isn't quite right and I couldn't make
a Mustang or SBD spin no matter what I did. As with any simulator, there
are flight regimes where the accuracy breaks down.
On the other hand, IFR simulation is sweaty-palms time and simulating
a fatal DC3 airliner flight in Wyoming (in 1946) is downright eerie.
Ron Miller
PP-ASEL, CFI-G
Billy Verreynne
>From the sounds of it, X-Plane has the realism I'm after, and FlightGear is
a
>possible alternative if I can get the tech info I'd need.
E-mail Curtis - I'm sure he will be glad to answer any technical questions
you have about FlightGear.
He runs the http://www.flightgear.org and designs and develops most (if not
all) of the scenery code for the sim.
regards,
Billy
Billy Verreynne
<7gsgt6$ahu$1...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>...
>I'm running X-Plane and enjoying it very much for lots of reasons but
>I'm finding that stall break isn't quite right and I couldn't make
>a Mustang or SBD spin no matter what I did. As with any simulator, there
>are flight regimes where the accuracy breaks down.
Yes, the biggest weakness in X-Plane's flight model IMHO at the moment are
stalls and spins. There are however some X-Plane aircraft designs that can
be flown in this regime with some degree of accuracy.
I have just tested the latest X-Plane 5 beta and it seems that some of these
aspects are being addressed. The helo model especially went up a couple of
notches with excellent helo control response.
regards,
Billy
Brett I. Holcomb
--
Brett I. Holcomb
bhol...@R777cableone.net
Microsoft MVP
AKA Grunt<><
ICQ 1750477
Remove R777 to reply
Billy Verreynne <vsl...@onwe.co.za> wrote in message
news:7gr8ff$r8h$1...@hermes.is.co.za...
> Brett I. Holcomb wrote.....
>
> >There is no "BEST". You need to decide what's best - if you want super
> >realism then there are sims (X-Plane is supposed to be good in that
> respect)
> >that will fill that need. If you want to have fun and can live with some
> >assumptions and non-ideal modeling there are some that will do that, too.
>
> Very true. X-Plane in not for everyone. Neither is FS98. It depends on
> what -you- want from the sim. It's likle asking a person what is the best
> movie ever made. Lots of different opinions and viewpoints.
>
Guy Daugherty
> possible alternative if I can get the tech info I'd need.
Send you Flight Gear inquiries to Curt Olson at cu...@me.umn.edu
He will answer any question you may have.
--Guy.
jd9...@my-dejanews.com
"Billy Verreynne" <vsl...@onwe.co.za> wrote:
> jd9...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7gsdk4$2at$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> a
> >possible alternative if I can get the tech info I'd need.
>
> you have about FlightGear.
>
> He runs the http://www.flightgear.org and designs and develops most (if not
> all) of the scenery code for the sim.
Thanks! I was more thinking the tech info on the aircraft. :)
At present, I know the top speed, the weight of the aircraft loaded &
unloaded, but not the weight of any of the payload, next to nothing on the
actual shapes - yeah, I can look at a photo, and say "that's a lancaster", or
"that's a spitfire", but that's not really good enough, here, especially as
the shapes weren't simple, nothing on the fuel load, the mean fuel
consumption or how it varied under different conditions, or any other USEFUL
characteristic of the aircraft.
Yeah, I can probably make guesstimates and those'll probably produce something
vaguely similar, but what's the use in trying to get a heavily accurate flight
sim, when I'm only going to use something with only a passing resemblance to
what I want? :(
If anyone who HAS built models (either for a flight sim, a scale model, or
any other kind of model) of the aircraft I mentioned earlier and can provide
me with useful specs on them (shape, behaviour, etc.) - that would be very
very much appreciated. I -was- hoping to get technical info on these aircraft
off the web (there's plenty of web-rings dedicated to them) or from books,
but I've seen nothing on the web, I've not been able to reach any web-page
maintainer, and the books are all out of print.
Billy Verreynne
>Thanks! I was more thinking the tech info on the aircraft. :)
Oh, OK. Sorry. :-)
In that case point your browser to http://pc38.seva.net/~registry and look
up the aircraft you are interested. All of those you're interested in have
been signed for X-Plane AFAIK. There you'll find the e-mail address of the
designer - simply drop the designer an e-mail and pop a few questions. I'm
sure these guys won't mind - they love to talk about their designs and share
data.
regards,
Billy
David CL Francis
>Thanks! I was more thinking the tech info on the aircraft. :)
>
>unloaded, but not the weight of any of the payload, next to nothing on the
>actual shapes - yeah, I can look at a photo, and say "that's a lancaster", or
>"that's a spitfire", but that's not really good enough, here, especially as
>the shapes weren't simple, nothing on the fuel load, the mean fuel
>consumption or how it varied under different conditions, or any other USEFUL
>characteristic of the aircraft.
Some information on the Lancaster I III and X
Maximum weights
Take-off and straight flying 72,000 lb (provided certain mods are
fitted and Merlin 24 or 224 are fitted, paddle-bladed propellors,
Lincoln type undercarriage and tyres. (The Lincoln was replacement for
the Lancaster with a bigger wongspan.)
Maximum diving speed 360 mph IAS
Maximum speed U/C down and or flaps down 200 mph
Climb 160 mph IAS to 12,000 ft
155 mph " from 12,000 to 18,000
150 mph " from 18,000 to 22,000
145 mph " above 22,000 ft
It takes 250 gallons of fuel to climb to 20,000 ft and the distance
covered is 140 miles.
Air miles per gallon out 1.13 at 150 mph, 1.14 at 160mph 1.13 at 170 mph
Miles per gall Home 1.2 m/g at 140 mph, 1.21 at 150, 1.2 at 160, 1.13 at
170 and 1.15 180.
Total fuel capacity 2,154 gallons
The largest bomb load carried was 22,000 lb but typical bomb loads were
more like 12-14,000 lb. The range being greater with a smaller load.
All figures approximate from Pilots Notes. Gallons will be Imperial
Gallons.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Francis E-Mail reply to <fli...@dclf.demon.co.uk>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Townsend
advise me ?
Cheers Max.
>
>
>
Billy Verreynne
>I am looking for a FS that is like SWOTL (the last best FS I played) can
you
>advise me ?
Huh, you talking to me? YOU talking to ME!? YOU TALKING TO ME!!
;-)
Geez, now you're putting me in a hot spot. I've never played SWOTL myself -
progressed from BOB1940 to the combat sims like LHX, Yeager's Air Combat,
Red Baron and others...
If you are looking for a WWII sim that can be extended to include some of
the Luftwaffe's more exotic creations, then I suggest you consider either
Microsoft's Combat Flight Sim (CFS) or Parsoft's Fighter Squadron :
Screaming Deamons over Europe (or SDOE for short).
Personally I will choose SDOE - I have played the CFS beta last year and got
my hands on a copy of SDOE when it was released. CFS is the more "polished"
of the two without a doubt, but I found SDOE to be a very immersive sim with
excellent capabilities due to the OpenPlane object orientated interface it
supports. SDOE has received some bad press, but most of that IMHO was not
accurate. You know how it is - it's much easier to slam something especially
when you don't know all the facts.
The problem though is that it will take some time for these special
creations of the Luftwaffe to find their way into these sims.
If you are looking for a GA sim that can accurately model Warbirds, then I
suggest X-Plane. But by the same token I have only flown FS98 once and in a
real procedural cockpit simulator so I can not really comment as to what
FS98 can offer you in this regards. If it is flight model accuracy you're
after then X-Plane will definitely deliver. Also, X-Plane already has a
large collection of Warbirds and a couple SWOTL's too.
clear skies,
Billy