Outerra forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Outerra Tech Demo download. Help with graphics driver issues

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic: Pilatus B4-PC11AF  (Read 25126 times)

HiFlyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1773
  • newbie
Re: Pilatus B4-PC11AF
« Reply #30 on: February 04, 2016, 07:18:05 pm »

Nice find! Although did it have any affects of changing wind speeds? That "bubble" of lift will change with wind speed. Too little wind, you have to stay close to the ridge of the slope. Too much wind, and the bubble that gets created on top gets stretched way out. With pretty optimal conditions the best lift/hight will be found just a bit aft of the ridgeline. :) something that also needs to be taken into account is that if the ridge is high, does not automaticly mean it's going to have great lift if the wind can travel more "around" it rather than over it..

I suspect that once you can gather the values for the topography surrounding the plane, other calculations could be plugged in taking account of humidity, temperature, wind, etc to refine the simulated lift?
Logged
Spex: Intel Core i7 6700K @ 4.6GHz / 32.0GB G.SKILL TridentZ Series Dual-Channel Ram / ASUS STRIX GeForce GTX 1080 / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Rift VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 2x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / Windows 10 Pro

FarlanderMiG

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: Pilatus B4-PC11AF
« Reply #31 on: February 05, 2016, 02:11:47 am »

Im no coder, but that seems possible..
Logged

bomber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • newbie
Re: Pilatus B4-PC11AF
« Reply #32 on: February 05, 2016, 07:28:20 am »

As I understand it glider clubs know their local ridges and lifts it produces at the prevailing wind speeds and directions like the back of their own hands..

It's my belief that it's better to offer a tool / addon that allows these clubs to use their own knowledge of flying their ridges over years and years to mimic exactly the conditions...

If we produce a best guess application it will never reproduce reality as they experience it....

It would be in my opinion better to offer near 100% accuracy as far as the pilots that fly an area understand it than offer a product that's a fudge 100% of the time.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2016, 07:31:58 am by bomber »
Logged
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell

FarlanderMiG

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: Pilatus B4-PC11AF
« Reply #33 on: February 05, 2016, 07:52:45 am »

While i can absolutely find information for you of the genaral places around our airport, that is not a good solution to making the game be realistic. First of all you'd only be able to fly in a few places where people have made it, and no matter what. The experience of any thermal or ridge will be different every time. Less so for ridges, but still varies alot dependant on angle, wind speed etc.the best, and easiest in the long run would be to simulate it properly. Ther is no such things as 100% the thermal will be exactly here/ the best lift on the ridge will be always be there...
Logged

bomber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • newbie
Re: Pilatus B4-PC11AF
« Reply #34 on: February 05, 2016, 09:26:26 am »

First of all lets agree that what ever we do there will always be an element of compromise, for example pushing for the 100% accuracy could require so much real time calculations as to slow the sim down to a slide show or something similiar...

that's not to say we shouldn't aim for accuracy just that a view to the whole has to be taken.

While i can absolutely find information for you of the genaral places around our airport, that is not a good solution to making the game be realistic.

But around the airport it would be accurate...



First of all you'd only be able to fly in a few places where people have made it,

you'd be able to fly just that the level of accuracy in other places wouldn't be as high as in those places 'maped'

and no matter what. The experience of any thermal or ridge will be different every time. Less so for ridges, but still varies alot dependant on angle, wind speed etc.the best, 

But you're mixing lifts here...

1) ridge lift
2) flat plain thermal lift
3) wave lift.

Ridge lift is fairly precictable based on wind direction and strength.... a hang gliders life depends upon his knowlwdge of his areas ridge lift characteristics.

Flat plain or hot spots are somewhat unpredictable, being a product of ground heating, a cloud gowing across the sun creating thermal bubbles...

Wave lift here again is predictable on wind strength and direction.


and easiest in the long run would be to simulate it properly.

I don't see how 'properly' can be defined... and even then you'd have to compare it against known data

There is no such things as 100% the thermal will be exactly here/ the best lift on the ridge will be always be there...

you contradict yourself here, and I think it's yet again mixing of lift phenominums...

thermals you're correct..... ridge lift yoiu're incorrect...

I'd suggest different approaches for different types...

thermals linked to outerra's global weather system augmented by 'local' ridge and wave lift map data.

regards

Simon

p.s.
a map you might like to look at

http://thermal.kk7.ch/
« Last Edit: February 05, 2016, 09:31:40 am by bomber »
Logged
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell

HiFlyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1773
  • newbie
Re: Pilatus B4-PC11AF
« Reply #35 on: February 05, 2016, 09:54:56 am »

A friend over at Avsim who is an actual glider pilot and a definite simulation perfectionist, always says that the most realistic gliding simulation he's ever experienced is Condor soaring simulator, and I think that uses calculations as well. (apparently very good ones)

Logged
Spex: Intel Core i7 6700K @ 4.6GHz / 32.0GB G.SKILL TridentZ Series Dual-Channel Ram / ASUS STRIX GeForce GTX 1080 / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Rift VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 2x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / Windows 10 Pro

bomber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • newbie
Re: Pilatus B4-PC11AF
« Reply #36 on: February 05, 2016, 10:14:16 am »

I don't mind comparing the requirements of another sim.... however we can't put expectations and limitations on ourselves that aren't applied to them.... ie lets compare apples to apples

"Condor uses a "limited area" approach with sceneries. This approach was chosen because of specific requirements of soaring simulators and the limitations of current hardware."

Simon
Logged
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell

HiFlyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1773
  • newbie
Re: Pilatus B4-PC11AF
« Reply #37 on: February 05, 2016, 10:31:38 am »

I don't mind comparing the requirements of another sim.... however we can't put expectations and limitations on ourselves that aren't applied to them.... ie lets compare apples to apples

"Condor uses a "limited area" approach with sceneries. This approach was chosen because of specific requirements of soaring simulators and the limitations of current hardware."

Simon

And that limited area approach seems to be because creating windmaps in that detail for a large number of areas is apparently too complicated and labor intensive.

Its kind of a paradigm: Outerra uses calculations to automatically create a data-based representation of the world that would also be too complicated and labor intensive to create by hand.

I suspect the devs would take that general approach to soaring as well, with "plausible" world coverage, with the ability of enthusiasts to go into more detail later if they wanted.'

Or what the heck: maybe not!  =D

« Last Edit: February 05, 2016, 10:33:47 am by HiFlyer »
Logged
Spex: Intel Core i7 6700K @ 4.6GHz / 32.0GB G.SKILL TridentZ Series Dual-Channel Ram / ASUS STRIX GeForce GTX 1080 / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Rift VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 2x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / Windows 10 Pro

bomber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • newbie
Re: Pilatus B4-PC11AF
« Reply #38 on: February 05, 2016, 10:37:40 am »

I'd suggest different approaches for different types...

thermals linked to outerra's global weather system augmented by 'local' ridge and wave lift map data.
And that limited area approach seems to be because creating windmaps in that detail for a large number of areas is apparently too complicated and labor intensive.

Its kind of a paradigm: Outerra uses calculations to automatically create a data-based representation of the world that would also be too complicated and labor intensive to create by hand.

I suspect the devs would take that general approach to soaring as well, with "plausible" world coverage, with the ability of enthusiasts to go into more detail later if they wanted.'

Or what the heck: maybe not!  =D

As I suggested... however it doesn't mean rdige lift maps have to wait untill the Outerra Devs get around to doing the 'plausible' coverage... with a GUI, and colour index map and a bit of C++ 'glue' the atmospheric variables could be input into the JSBsim flight model right now.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2016, 10:41:37 am by bomber »
Logged
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell

HiFlyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1773
  • newbie
Re: Pilatus B4-PC11AF
« Reply #39 on: February 05, 2016, 11:04:06 am »

Where would you choose?
Logged
Spex: Intel Core i7 6700K @ 4.6GHz / 32.0GB G.SKILL TridentZ Series Dual-Channel Ram / ASUS STRIX GeForce GTX 1080 / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Rift VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 2x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / Windows 10 Pro

bomber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • newbie
Re: Pilatus B4-PC11AF
« Reply #40 on: February 05, 2016, 11:46:47 am »

Somewhere that we can get ridge lift data for ?

I'm pretty sure a club that's based on a ridge will have maps for conditions during prevailing winds... the trick would be to get them onboard and allow us sight of their ridges data such that we could produce colour index maps of the data.

The bottom line is I understand that gliding clubs / pilots want a better simulation, but it's very much a case of them helping us out with data such that we can attempt to help them... there's simply no point us guessing the conditions for them to simply tell us it's rubbish as its not accurate..... well durh we guessed.

Simon

« Last Edit: February 05, 2016, 11:49:26 am by bomber »
Logged
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell

HiFlyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1773
  • newbie
Re: Pilatus B4-PC11AF
« Reply #41 on: February 05, 2016, 01:31:01 pm »

Somewhere that we can get ridge lift data for ?

I'm pretty sure a club that's based on a ridge will have maps for conditions during prevailing winds... the trick would be to get them onboard and allow us sight of their ridges data such that we could produce colour index maps of the data.

The bottom line is I understand that gliding clubs / pilots want a better simulation, but it's very much a case of them helping us out with data such that we can attempt to help them... there's simply no point us guessing the conditions for them to simply tell us it's rubbish as its not accurate..... well durh we guessed.

Simon

I'm just worried about the experience feeling "canned" or "static" if (depending on how its done) the maps just sit there,unchanging.
Logged
Spex: Intel Core i7 6700K @ 4.6GHz / 32.0GB G.SKILL TridentZ Series Dual-Channel Ram / ASUS STRIX GeForce GTX 1080 / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Rift VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 2x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / Windows 10 Pro

FarlanderMiG

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: Pilatus B4-PC11AF
« Reply #42 on: February 05, 2016, 04:21:21 pm »

Thing is, we all agree thet no matter what it won't be more realistic than real life, lol.. But put it this way, having anything weather related behave the same way every time is not any more realistic than having generated weather with sligly less realistic characteristics.

Yes, ridgelift can be as simple as wind blows on hill and gives you 2m/s of climb, but due to the shape of hills they react differently to wind speeds and angles. I have never seen a single ridge that is straight like a knife, and so as wind direction changes, different parts of the ridge generate lift.

There are a ton of factors that come into play even when it's just ridge lift we are talking about, and i could record you my flight data from my gps every time i go on the ridge, but they will all be very different.

The whole "reason" people do gliding is the challenge to stay in the air, and this is all based upon using your experience reading the weather to figure out where to place your bets on the best thermals/use keep track of wind directions at altitudes to find ridgelift and wavelift. If this was all static i would give the game a try a few times, and then go back to condor. Condor isn't at all perfect, but with no other competitor and featuring decent/ok generated weather that changes all the time it's still great.

If i could stay in the same spots all day long, then what would be the challenge of gliding? in real life thermals do tend to happen at some known areas, but the can literally appear anywhere.. (well, you might have a hard time above water or other special areas...)

What im trying to say is that i'd rather take a bad generated weather over a static, but possibly more realistic weather based on statistics gathered from the area because it will give diversity and acually realism, becuase weather is never static.

EDIT:

Ok, drop the thermal stuff for now. Point is, good luck getting all the data for every inch of the ridges rather than doing a simulation of it based on elevation data. And you'd still be really restricted to where you can fly.. which is counterproductive for an engine like outerra that builds upon having the whole world for you to explore..
« Last Edit: February 05, 2016, 04:26:47 pm by FarlanderMiG »
Logged

HiFlyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1773
  • newbie
Re: Pilatus B4-PC11AF
« Reply #43 on: February 05, 2016, 05:13:49 pm »

Of course, in the end, its Uriah who will probably do the dirty work on this, one day.  =D

I wonder what he thinks.
Logged
Spex: Intel Core i7 6700K @ 4.6GHz / 32.0GB G.SKILL TridentZ Series Dual-Channel Ram / ASUS STRIX GeForce GTX 1080 / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Rift VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 2x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / Windows 10 Pro

bomber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • newbie
Re: Pilatus B4-PC11AF
« Reply #44 on: February 05, 2016, 05:55:36 pm »

Well I think we just can't keep bumping the work load up on the same bloke..... someone else new has to step up.....

Isn't there anyone inspired. ?
Logged
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4