XPFRs B17

[fatherjack]

If you are interested in knowing why on hell the props in PM are set to 89.9-90°, why it's declared as 600hp

That is no mystery but it is still causing problems (as are your brake priming controls).

I'm just not interested in tenths of posts/mails repeating "you're wrong because you're wrong". Because this, yes, IS indeed trolling.

Indeed.

[arno54]

>>That is no mystery but it is still causing problems (as are your brake priming controls).

This is not a question. So, I don't have an answer.

I DO have a question : can you tell ONE perf of the FM that is wrong by more than 3%?

I do have other questions : in the end, what do you want? what do you expect from me? Why are you soooo interested in such a crappy plane? Why don't you simply do a better one to show the world how much I am wrong and you're good (because it sounds to me this is the point!)

Make the bird. Show us. I'll applaude and use it.

[Simmo W]

Arnaud has asked that I not feed the Troll, so I won't. I'm talking to Arnaud here-

Ignore this person. As a freeware scenery dev (part time) I know full well the huge effort it takes to provide us with great addons. And I know scenery is easy compared to planes!

I'm not getting bogged down in technical details, I'll leave that to you, but most of us find the 17 slow and cumbersome, just how you would imagine. It seems right to me.

If people like fj made these types of comments every time someone did a freeware item, there would be no freeware items! Maybe that is its intention...

[LA]

So somebody comes forward with useful constructive criticism, which includes useful details, and you mark them as spam and call them a troll?!

X-Plane is, or should be, about more than eye candy. Its about fidelity of the flight model, in both the core sim, and the aircraft that we make for it.

snipped

Several hundred of people who like what they see, and do not know any better when it comes to flight model accuracy perhaps?

Do you really believe that X-Plane's flight model is so advanced.................that imputing correct dimensions will produce an exact duplicate of the real aircraft!  ;D

HA,HA,HA

Just as with MSFS, X-Plane has to involve black art, hidden parts, etc............to make it believable & functional.

I hate to break it to you..................but I often read about X-Planes superior flight models.......just by imputing the airplanes dimensions, airfoils, power, and a few other things.

But............it just doesn't happen. At least not yet!

Personally, I think Fatherjack should build a real B-17 and quit his moaning....

I found his criticism to be in bad taste. X-Plane is not a real aircraft. There is no metal, no aviation fuel, no rivets, no air, and a lot more nothings.  I deal with the real thing. Did a bit of metal work on a B-29 too.

Yet........Fatherjack talks as though the "model"......or simulation.............is the real thing...  ???

LA

[flyinhawaiian]

Holy pissing contest batman!

I just like it cause it sounds purdy

[Oliver]

Those of you complaining about the B17,

Could we possibly just end the argument? If you have problems with the plane there's 2 very simple options for you; Either you make your own B17

and we'll be the judges of that, or you stop complaining about what was given to you. Arnaud, and Khamsin took hundreds (if not more) of

hours out of their personal time just to create something the entire X-Plane community could enjoy. Arnaud, you did some fine work my friend, don't

let trolls like FJ tell you otherwise  

[Ben Russell]

To make ground breaking stuff in X-Plane the first thing you should do is throw out all the rule books and think outside the box.

Throwing stones is easy.

Actually fixing the .acf file and sending that back to the authors for true constructive critique is much much harder.

..Looking forward to seeing fatherjacks patched ACF flight-model in a future episode.

[clavel9]

The level of argument being offered here is rather disappointing.

I'm not interested in whatever exchanges have taken place between arno54 and fatherjack elsewhere: they are irrelevant here. Nor am I interested in accusations of trolling. That's a matter for the contributors in question and the moderators.

One the one hand, arno54 challenges fatherjack/us to show him one aspect of the flight model that falls outside 3% of the given figures for the real aircraft. I'm happy to take his assertion that "you won't find any" at face value as neither I, nor I suspect, many others, will put in the hours necessary to test this assertion. On the other hand, he hasn't addressed the ten points that fatherjack did make above. For example, fatherjack points out incorrect engine position, foil sections, aileron size and tailplane dihedral. These are empirical data that can be easily found out and verified: the B-17 must be one of the most documented aircraft out there. (There's even a Haynes manual.) This means that these data were either ignored from the start or discarded during the design process to another end. This is important as it addresses the fundamental question of how X-Plane itself operates. X-Plane uses these data dynamically to calculate the ACF's behaviour, as we all know. Therefore, I think it's legitimate to question whether arno54 and his colleagues couldn't achieve their aims using the correct foil sections/dihedral/aileron dimensions and changed them accordingly or whether starting with the wrong data led to the need to correct the ACF's behaviour by other means. I think it's a question to which any ACF author or would-be author would be interested in seeing answered.

I agree with Ben that sometimes you need to throw out the rule book. I don't think it's the first thing you should do though. Of course compromises will need to be made, and fudges fudged. No-one is saying otherwise. No one is questioning the amount of time and thought that has gone into the B-17. It doesn't mean that it can't be criticised constructively, or aspects of its design questioned. Criticism shouldn't be taken as a personal attack on the authors. It isn't.

[Nicola_M]

Those of you complaining about the B17,

Could we possibly just end the argument? If you have problems with the plane there's 2 very simple options for you; Either you make your own B17

and we'll be the judges of that, or you stop complaining about what was given to you. Arnaud, and Khamsin took hundreds (if not more) of

hours out of their personal time just to create something the entire X-Plane community could enjoy.

Well said. Criticism is unwarranted unless it's cost you money. Either make use of what was given free, or build your own.

[samen]

Sometimes to achieve the best results you need to enter abnormal data and I think that is what Arno has done. Who knows if you were to enter the "correct" values the flightmodel will be worse than before. Remember you did not pay for this, nor did anyone force you to download it. You must represent the 0.1% of the community who is not happy with the aircraft. Please show us if you can do a better job in that much time.

[clavel9]

Criticism is unwarranted unless it's cost you money. Either make use of what was given free, or build your own.

That suggests it's OK to criticise Photoshop or MS Office but not The GIMP or OpenOffice.

Or to criticise Felis's Il-14 if I bought it last year but not if I downloaded it for free last week... Unless I go build my own first.

[arno54]

On the other hand, he hasn't addressed the ten points that fatherjack did make above. For example, fatherjack points out incorrect engine position, foil sections, aileron size and tailplane dihedral.

[...] I think it's a question to which any ACF author or would-be author would be interested in seeing answered.

Ok...  :-[ here we go. Please note : I did address these points, in private, days ago, to fj. Repeating them countlessly will not make them more relevant. Once again : I scratch my head, but I really do not see where this can lead, in what way it can help anyone to improve xplane enjoyment or whatever. You're trying to force me into pissing contest. But anyway, as it looks there is no other way to close that stupid argument :

1. The engine locations are not correct. The outboard engines are too high with respect to the inboard ones. the outboard engines are actually not far enough outboard but that is visually insignificant. + 2 +3

>>What to answer ? This is not a question, but free affirmation. The plane is "blenderized" from actual boeing plans. What am I supposed to answer this kind of "constructive" remark ? One thinks the plane is not accurate enough ?  DO NOT FLY IT. I DO NOT CARE. Clear enough?

4. The mesh is not fine enough. Mesh density (within limits) has little impact on rendering performance and does not need to be scrimped on as much as many modelers think.

>>This plane runs on my netbook eeepc and that's what it's intended for. Not beautiful enough? Don't fly it.

5. It's too shiny. A little thing but it shows up the coarse mesh too much.

>>I don't like purple, the beattles and bananas. Quite as relevant as this one. Not beautiful enough? Don't fly it.

1. The fuselage has zero Cd.

>>Pure invention, or fj has definitely no idea about hox PM works. In both case, I'm not going to teach lessons in here. The fuselage CANNOT have 0cd or it wouldn't load in-game. Not accurate enough ? Don't fly it.

EDIT/COMPLEMENT :

1 - It needs this because the props are useless.

>> Pure invention. Check out I/O when you'll be airborn if this ever occur, and tell again. You don't understand how this works? Ok, this doesn't mean it does not work.

2- Flying along with data showing you can see a L/D of 17 or 18 but you can still only manage 500 fpm at sea level.

>> Pure invention by someone who never succeeded in starting the plane. The take-off perf is given in official doc at 1770ft of runway for +1150ft/mn at 55000lb at sea level, in-game it's 1750ft-1130ft/mn, so i assume it "almost" perfect. If you had tested and/or understood the systems, you'd be aware of that.

Please not that you have a L/D of 18. Ok, if it had no drag has you claim everywhere and everyone, the L/D would be INFINITE. No, fj, I'm not trying to show how stupid your argument is : you show it by telling anything and its opposite in the same sentence !

END OF EDIT

2. The props have working angles from 89.9 to 90º

>>Definitely true. Done on purpose. What's the pb with this? I'm fed with repeating, again and again, that the engines are NOT managed in PM. This one, that comes over and over, just shows that fj has simply NO IDEA about pm really works. Not a solution good enough for you ? change it. Don't write to me again "fix the props urgently! " as an order, because I won't. Make "your own stuff".

2-and must be feathered to work,

>>Pure invention. Not a question : nothing to answer to this. I scratch may head searching what it may mean.

2- bypassing god knows what functionality in the sim.

>>If fj doesn't know what it bypasses, why is it a problem to him? I think do know what it bypasses, and this is the reason why the pitches are set the way they are in PM. I assume my choice is correct. One disagree? That's ok for me, this one is really "out of the books" and ben said. One wants a "classical" solution ? No problem : DO YOUR OWN THING.

2-They are seriously oversized too.

>>Pure invention.

3. The wings use the default NACA16 x-plane section.

>>True. Not choosen randomly.I don't give a cent for the NAME of the foil, I'm only interested in the result. Anything else, here, is irrelevant. naca16 not good enough ? Change them. Or best  : DO YOUR OWN THING !

3-This is nothing like the required NACA 0018 to 0010 to spite the name similarities.

>>"required"? by who? What to do ? I've ran hundreds of hours of tests on that subject, made thousands of perfs. measurement, and I, on my own, decided that naca16 was the best choice to be the closest to the original perfs, what is the very only thing I consider as relevant. If one disagree, that's ok for me !  I don't give a cent for the NAME of the foil, I'm only interested in the result. Anything else, here, is irrelevant.

3-They also only use two elements per mainplane, negating much of the clever programming by Austin.

>>True. Have ever heard of "saving cpu resources?" The plane is inyended to fly on very weak hardware. It does. Accurately. I'm only interested in the result. Anything else, here, is irrelevant.

3- Multi-engined aircraft should use plenty of elements. Multi-element wings are necessary if you wish to see some of the normal aileron deficiencies at low speeds with a bit of slip.

>>Should ?  What am I supposed to respond to this? It just doesn't make sense !

4. Ailerons are massively oversized.

>>If it's about the 3D object, it's pure invention. If it's about PM object : I don't know, I don't care, because it's not my concern. It may be true. Let's say it's true? So what? I'm only interested in the result. Anything else, here, is irrelevant. Too large, too long, too god knows what ? change them OR DO YOUR OWN THING.  There is no question, no problem, no nothing, it's just "it's wrong because it's wrong" and I do not see the point ! What fj wants from me? I do not have the smallest idea.

5. With no drag, this baby is not going to want to land, so they've added 60 square feet of flatplate area to the landing gear.

>> This one so absurd that I do not know how to handle it.

- I just cannot see the link between the 2

- Saying that the plane has no drag is simply non-sense or total un-knowledge of PM

- Flatplate area is a question of differential drag, that is, momentum induced by the change of geometry.

- All those who have flown the bird are still airborn waiting to go down? that's stupid.

A lot of defaults where pointed at, and in most case, the end on my notebook for v1.1 correction. Want some to discuss about? differential brakes are reversed. Much more obvious and relevant than shinyness of the fuselage. I have a whole list of stuff like this, picked up by users. We'll correct them : the plane is NOT perfect, obvioulsy there are a lot of things to improve.  

But now, having to discuss about aerodynamics with someone who apparently doesn't understand at all that PM is, in this case, totally irrelevant, someone who did not read the manual, someone who criticize the flight model WHITHOUT HAVING FLOWN THE BIRD.... This pisses me off.

Yet nobody now has asked WHY props are sets 89.9-90. Up to now, I've just heard "this is uncorrect". No question, no whatever. Just non-constructive criticism.

The plane is not good enough for you ?  Claim for a refund!

[Nicola_M]

That suggests it's OK to criticise Photoshop or MS Office but not The GIMP or OpenOffice.

Quite right. If you've bought something from someone, then they have an obligation to listen to your criticisms (and maybe) do something about it.

But you didn't buy this. It was given to you for free, which means no one "owes" you anything, they are not obligated.

What kind of response to criticism do you think you'd get from the authors of GIMP? I very much doubt they'd bend over backwards to address your complaints.

[arno54]

@Nicola

That's not the point.

The point is, when you criticize sthg, you expect something to be done.

Right now, I do not have the smallest idea of what is expected, and as apparently nothing is expected, I assume this is angry childish chinning. The only request I heard was a private mail COMMANDING me to "fix the props", which I obvioulsy won't as I guess they work as I intended them to.

But I disagree with you, one has the right not to be happy with something that is free, and the right to ask for more. ;-) For instance, I was definitely opposed to bomb carrying : but as everyone has requested, I did so. I do listen to complaints and wills ;-)

[UH-60 Blackhawk]

Quick question, how does one open the bomb bay doors?  I have dropped bombs safely without opening them, but want to know how one does this.

[eaglewing7]

Quick question, how does one open the bomb bay doors?  I have dropped bombs safely without opening them, but want to know how one does this.

On the panel, there are some lights near the control column on the pilot's side, one of them (can't remember which one off the top of my head) activates the doors to open and close.

[Nicola_M]

I have dropped bombs safely without opening them.

WTF? ???

[Ben Russell]

...just ignore him, he has no idea what he's talking about. Ever. In any of his posts.

[UH-60 Blackhawk]

I have dropped bombs safely without opening them.

WTF? ???

I dropped the bombs, and for some reason it didn't blow up the bird.  I even checked the external view, but they fell straight through the fuselage.

[FlorianR]

?

[arno54]

I dropped the bombs, and for some reason it didn't blow up the bird.  I even checked the external view, but they fell straight through the fuselage.

UH-60 is correct. The 3D model has no physical existence as far as Xplane's physics are concerned, so it's perfectly possible to drop the bombs THROUGH the bomb bay door, as this door simply is not there according to the "opinion" of the bombs.

This is one of the flaws that were pointed at - as I previously said, lot of things are to be improved.

The fact is, we were aware of this fault. But as we (specially I) were not very interested in the armament question, I decided to let it this way. If I feel brave enough, I may have a look at this for the patch to come.

[hobofat]

But anyway, as it looks there is no other way to close that stupid argument :

I personally say, "Don't feed the trolls," but as frustrated as you must feel defending your freeware offering to the rabid masses, showing up and responding personally on this public forum shows good form.  Thanks for taking the time to do so.

[arno54]

You're welcome.

I'll answer any question about technical conception or use of the bird, with pleasure.

I just will no longer answer to what does not sound like a question.   I'm quite sure everyone can understand.

[Nicola_M]

Certainly.

No big deal about the doors being not solid. They are there, they look there, that's all that matters.

I was just curious why UH60 would try to bomb something without opening the bomb doors first? (Although I can't talk, considering I bombed myself without even leaving the tarmac!)

I still think this is one of the best aircraft (freeware or payware) to have graced xp9 so far.

[MaidenFan]

You're welcome.

I'll answer any question about technical conception or use of the bird, with pleasure.

I just will no longer answer to what does not sound like a question.   I'm quite sure everyone can understand.

People should read or skim the manual before asking questions though.