Crash effects?

[Daube]

[quote]

[vololiberista]

Today at 03:11:42, vololiberista wrote:
Touch the aelerons and you're  dead

Could you explain this ? I'm trying to figure out what kind of airflow gets around the wings, and I don't understand why aelerons have any influence there.

Aerodynamically the spin is a very stable manoeuvre!!!!  Each wing is alternately stallling and recovering. There is airflow over the wings BUT it is not in the direction of flight and moving the aelerons has the effect of deepening the spin to the point where the a/c can be effectively locked in. Because any movement of the aelerons will cause wingtip stall. As a pilot, one's instinct is to move the aelerons BUT in a spin the only control surface that is working with a normal airflow is the rudder.  Not only that but if you move the rudder in the wrong direction you can go into an inverted spin  The spin is extremely dissorientating as it is sudden and fast and at the same time you are plummeting towards the ground.
It is very difficult to describe the sensation to someone who has never experienced the real thing. On the one hand I could suggest you go up with an experienced pilot in an a/c with good spin recovery characteristics. But what if he gets it wrong???  Otherwise try and locate videos of spin recovery which sometimes give you an indication of how it is.
Finally I'll say that spin characteristics are unique to every a/c some are good and some are bad and as yet I've never seen a sim that emulates the spin very well!!
Vololiberista

[an-225]

I just hope they fix the damn collision detection... not realistic when you're flying a C-5A Galaxy and taking off over a C-130 and when youre about 15 feet over it you crash...Or when you just bump a building. CRASH :-/

[Ashton Lawson]

just hope they fix the damn collision detection... not realistic when you're flying a C-5A Galaxy and taking off over a C-130 and when youre about 15 feet over it you crash...Or when you just bump a building. CRASH

Yah, I hate that. >:(

(Back to spin-outs and such)
The F-22 has vectored thrust, so it can pull out of a stall or spin out easily.  But in FS, there is no Thrust vectoring function for aircraft, which suks.

[Katahu]

When it comes to crash detection, this is what happens.

This is my theory [and a plausible one]:

The sim renders an invisible crash-detection box around the aircraft and the size of the box is determined by the farthest contact point indicated by the "aircraft.cfg" file of the aircraft. I'm not sure it's either a box or a sphere of influence. But if the contact point dictate the size then it's most likely a sphere since the contact point can is being used to indicate radius and radius is a term used to measure the circumfrence of the sphere.

If this is true, then the sphere of influence must also extend upwards and downward in the same distance as the farthest contact point. Or maybe the distance downwards is probably affected by the location of the landing gear when extended.

I don't know, but it seems logical doesn't it? It could also explain an-225's situation. If this is the case, then it's only a matter of moving the contact points a little closer to the aircraft's center.

As for the case of the buildings, that's easily explained.

According to gmax gamepack sdk provided by Microsoft, FS will render invisible crash-detection "BOXES" around the scenery objects exported from Gmax to FS9. The boxes are then "STACKED" like blocks to conform to the "GENERAL" shape of the scenery object. However, the boxes will "NOT" be molded to the exact shape of the scenery object. For example, the boxes will be stacked like a "step" pyramid to confirm to the shape of the house's pointy roof. As a result, the remaining parts of the crash boxes around the scenery object will stick out like sore thumbs. But then again, the crash boxes on a square building will extend outwards anyways. Thus the inevitable "crash" will occur even when your plane's wingtip is only five feet away from the building.

[Woodlouse2002]

CFS2 had a collision bubble. It didn't affect how you shot the plane but get to close and you'd crash without touching. What we discovered and used to great effect in the Legenday SimV dogfights was a line in the CFS .cfg file or something that enabled you to change the size of that bubble so that you only crashed and burned on contact with another aircraft.

[C]

If real planes flew like they do in IL2 then there never would have been an air campaign in WWII due to every fighter going into a flat spin and crashing everytime he dared pull a manuver.

You'd be surprised...

[Woodlouse2002]

You'd be surprised...

Whilst playing IL2 I often was.

[Ashton Lawson]

Actually, I don't think this bubble thing applies.  When you make an aircraft, I you make no contact points, the aircraft would go through anything.  Once, I flew a 777 through 2 close-by buildings, side-ways, and I made it through.  If the spherical bubble rule applied there, i would turned of the sim cuz of the anoying 'crash' sign.

I think FS only cares about the contact points, cuz you hav point_class_wheel, point_class_float, and point_class_scrape.  I believe that any false collision detection is only caused by errors in the terrain collsion mesh, or badly placed contactpoints.

by da way, i think this reason is highly plausible too.

[Katahu]

I believe that any false collision detection is only caused by errors in the terrain collsion mesh, or badly placed contactpoints.

In the area of scenery, I was referring to the "objects" that are exported into FS as scenery objects. Not the terrain. The terrain is a different matter and I won't dwell on that because I have no idea how it works.

But I do agree on the "badly-place contact points" theory. Addon developers that are just learning usually have the tendency to make such errors by accident. I have an addon of a Horten fighter jet that existed in WW2. It flys nicely, but someone added a scrape point that causes an unnecessary spark just behind the engines even though the engines are not even touching the ground.

You probably just as right as I am about the whole sphere thing.

[an-225]

I actually agree with your invisible box/sphere theory there Katahu. Wouldn't it be nice if the collision detecion actually scanned the aircraft  model for perfect collision? Anyway I hope we get something like Battlefield 2's crash detection.

[Katahu]

I actually agree with your invisible box/sphere theory there Katahu. Wouldn't it be nice if the collision detecion actually scanned the aircraft  model for perfect collision? Anyway I hope we get something like Battlefield 2's crash detection.

I don't know about that. Usually, the crash detection of BF2 is based on an entirely different game engine so therefore I doubt it would work in the FS series. Maybe it might in a few more years. Who knows.

[Ashton Lawson]

I tell ya, ya know how MS made FSEdit for FS, well, maybe they should make a short program which would actually load the visual model and put it in 'worst-case' crash scenarios, and automatically generate contact points for the aircraft.

Much simpler, and definatly accurate contact points.

But MS are probably not going to do that.  If any of you MS guys are watching this particular thread...

[glb]!LOOK HERE![/glb]

[AirforceOne]

you know what whould be cool if say you had turbulence and your wings would wiggle or in worst case snap.

or your tail

and if say you put your landing gear down a high speed then they pop off

[Ashton Lawson]

In FS9, when the wheels are overstressed, (and quite often should be ripped off) the wheels stay stationary, but when u try to land, they go thru the ground.  Stupid.  Hope they fix that in FSX.

By da way, the URL thing under ur avatar, not working...
Properly...