197 replies to this topic

[Plank]

Hello!

 

Oh! those exposed bearings in the valve rockers. Gosh and darn.

How do they stay lubricated? What's it all about?

 

 

and no valve overlap i see. see. hmm. But less moving parts.

 

but very pretty!

 

Great! Can't wait to see the video documentation and even more photographs.

 

Salute!

 

Planky.

[piecost]

Thats an exiting purchase chill. Do you have a propeller for it?

[Arty_Effem]

Thats an exiting purchase

 

Let's hope it's not...

[Chill31]

I will be able to do some of the work myself, but some of it, i'll have to send off.  Propeller for example...i dont have the tools to make an 8 ft prop. Any skilled metal workers out here??  

[US103_Baer]

What an undertaking.
Salute! Chill31

[Chill31]

I thought this was a cool video a friend made

[Zooropa_Fly]

Yep, that was cool

[sturtz]

Very nice vid !  That flight community sure reminds me of Granbury Tx,,, just outside of Ft Worth. But I think it's a paved runway. 

[Plank]

Looking at the elevator is very interesting and the attitude of the fuselage... in that very nice video. S!

 

The prop is perpendicular to the direction of travel.

Now I have to go back and check the RoF Dr1 ...

but, the RoF N11 has a rather odd attitude. ( Prop/fuse is pointing down a tad in level flight...)

And I am pretty sure the RoF Dr1 does that too, like I say I will check.

 

In the fly by you can see the fuse is flying true ( not on a funny angle), the prop is at 90deg to the planes direction of travel

and the slight upward inclination of the horizontal stab and elevator makes perfect sense. ( down at back up at front.)

Was any stick pressure required to fly it at that speed? hmm...

 

So how does RoF DR1 compare to the actual flying thing? ( real/fake/replica etc)

 

To be frank the extreme elevator used to keep the RoF dr1 in check is, well, it is.... something.

 

and the extreme looping when hands off with default curve is very weird.

No one would fly a real plane in that condition. Maybe a heavy tail, sure, but looping like mad?

 

Nice plane! 

And the beetle!

ha ha. old and new. T

he specialists plane vs the peoples car.

Cute!

 

Yey!

 

Salute!

 

Planky.

[Panthercules]

Looking at the elevator is very interesting and the attitude of the fuselage... in that very nice video. S!

 

The prop is perpendicular to the direction of travel.

Now I have to go back and check the RoF Dr1 ...

but, the RoF N11 has a rather odd attitude. ( Prop/fuse is pointing down a tad in level flight...)

And I am pretty sure the RoF Dr1 does that too, like I say I will check.

 

In the fly by you can see the fuse is flying true ( not on a funny angle), the prop is at 90deg to the planes direction of travel

and the slight upward inclination of the horizontal stab and elevator makes perfect sense. ( down at back up at front.)

Was any stick pressure required to fly it at that speed? hmm...

 

So how does RoF DR1 compare to the actual flying thing? ( real/fake/replica etc)

 

To be frank the extreme elevator used to keep the RoF dr1 in check is, well, it is.... something.

 

and the extreme looping when hands off with default curve is very weird.

 

 

Not sure why you are saying this.  Just went in to check the Dr1 in RoF, and neither of the above statements highlighted in red matches the reality of the RoF Dr1 as I've experienced it.

 

First, very little downward elevator (forward pressure on stick) seems to be necessary to keep the RoF DR1 in level flight - as noted in the screenshot below:

 

 RoF DR1 in level flight - .jpg   190.28KB   3 downloads

 

And that was at full speed - I suspect that even less down elevator would be required at a slower, cruise speed (which I suspect the replica was flying at, though it was hard to tell from the video).

 

Second, the "looping with hands off" you complain about is almost certainly a result of using a joystick which springs back to center when you take your hands off the stick.  This has been discussed and explained by the devs at great length many years ago, and will happen on most if not all RoF planes if used with such spring-centering joysticks.  With my FFB joystick (which does not have centering spring action), the stick actually tends to fall forward when I release it, and thus the plane dives rather than loops with hands off.  However, that is an issue with the joystick, not with the game or the plane's FM.

 

I'm sure there are some aspects of the RoF Dr1 FM that could be improved, and I applaud Chili's efforts to encourage such improvements (as well as his courage in flying one of these birds -    ).  But I don't think taking unnecessary and unwarranted shots at the RoF Dr1 over things that aren't really issues is helpful.

[Plank]

Ahem.

 

The thread is about the Dr1 FM....

 

The video clearly shows a DR1 flying.

 

So I merely am connecting the dots.

 

Pictures.

 

 dr1 110 fuel 1000 ammo lines.jpg   335.14KB   0 downloads

 

The picture of the RoF Dr1 above is a clear indicator of the difference we see comparing real planes to RoF ones.

I have never seen a plane fly with that much elevator and the fuse at that angle when maintaining a level course.

( Pic is of Dr1 in level autopilot. it's flying with stick fwd and fuse nose down...)

 

 

This is not only displayed in the DR1 but the N11 N17 etc.

 

Obviously, as certain people have pointed out, time and again, this will not get addressed in RoF but it might in FC.

Clearly there is some "issue" with the FM of the planes and it might be good if they sort it out.

 

A quick and dirty fix would be rotate the plane about the axis till it's actually level. ( Yes they can do this.)

Then trim it so that at some usable speed it flies without climbing or looping. ( pretty sure they can do this.)

 

No one would fly a real plane that loops likes the RoF planes.  ( Set the curve to default, max revs, let go of stick.)

It would be extremely taxing on the pilot etc.

and planes I have seen fly level never fly with that much elevator...

even when looping some planes need way less than that....

 

Ahem.

 

Why don't we ask Mr Weeks?

 

https://en.wikipedia...ki/Kermit_Weeks

 

If anyone has a good idea of planes should fly he would know. ( beta tester?)

 

Personally after playing with other simulators I have come to find the "reality" of RoF to be a bit average.

Sure it looks nice and the basics work fine but the "fidelity" that some seem to bandy about is so so.

 

It feels it's age.

Lets hope that FC gets a whole new flight engine and it's more closer to CFD simulation.

We have the PC's to do this. ( well most of us.) So lets take this sim to the top most level. : - )

 

My personal opinion is the planes in RoF do not feel like they are "hanging" on their wings,

more like they are rotating around some centre point. and it looks like that when you go

into external view and study how they handle.  In my humble opinion.

 

But.

 

It's great to fly in RoF.

The actual stick time is great.

The fun and frolicking in the air with your comrades is excellent.

Sometimes it's even magic!

I am not bagging the whole experience. Not even.

 

If things get sorted out in FC... yey!

 

Salute!

 

Planky.

[Panthercules]

Well, the picture I posted was of a RoF Dr1 being flown by a player - the one you posted was apparently one being flown by AI/autopilot.  Yes, the two pictures show something different, and I have no idea why the AI/autopilot behavior is slightly different.  But I'm also not sure that a slight difference between AI/autopilot flight attitude and player-flown flight attitude really means very much or is an appropriate basis for drawing any conclusions about the correctness (or not) of the plane's FM.

 

And while you have taken a screenshot of a moment in time for the AI/autopilot, I know that at times the AI seems to porpoise up and down a bit (this was pretty pronounced at one point many moons ago, but seems to have been improved at some point), so it's quite possible that you just happened to catch the AI/autopilot during one of its tail up moments and you might see it in a slightly different tail down attitude at other times.  Again, that may be more a problem/issue with the AI control mechanism than with the underlying FM of the plane.

 

But in any event, it will be interesting to see how these planes get translated into FC and whether that seems to improve things or just to spawn more bithching and moaning.

[Chill31]

Was any stick pressure required to fly it at that speed? hmm... 

- Yes, the Dr1 ALWAYS requires forward stick pressure when flying at high (relatively) speed.  The only time I don't require forward stick pressure is when I am slowing down in the pattern to land (around 65 mph).  In the fly-by in that video, the plane is going maximum speed, limited by engine RPM, of about 105-110 mph.  Except during the slow-mo, then it is only going about 20 mph

 

So how does RoF DR1 compare to the actual flying thing? ( real/fake/replica etc)  

-The real Dr1 and the ROF Dr1 are very different.  The replica while not exactly like the original Dr1, is VERY close, I've done the measurements where measurements are known.  The real Dr1 flies like an arcade game, and if ROF represented it as it should be, people would probably complain that it is too easy and flies like an arcade game.  I have been wringing out the plane in mock dogfights (against myself sadly), and it just handles very well at low speed and tight turns.

 

The amount of down elevator represented in ROF graphics for high speed level flight is extreme.  I have not seen that amount of down elevator on my own plane or on Mikael Carlson's Dr1.  Here is a loop.  Watch as I push down on the controls to lower the nose slightly.  It requires so little effort and control deflection.  If I held the amount of deflection depicted by ROF, I would be doing outside loops or be ejected from the plane.  

 

https://youtu.be/8p_owOgO2aw?t=174

[Chill31]

Also, watch Carlson's elevator in this video.  My Horizontal stabilizer is shimmed by 1/2-3/4 of an inch nose down "trim".  I don't think Mikael's is set that way.  He also likely has a more aft CG than I do.  I am only 140 lbs.  A 180+ lb pilot moves the CG back about an inch, so more down elevator required.

 

[SeaW0lf]

Great vid Chill (the slow motion one). Looks like the inline engine still, right? If so, do you know when you are going to swap engines or you are just going low key about it? And congrats on the new Le Rhône!

[Plank]

Excellent videos!

 

This is what we need to focus on, actual planes actually flying and then start to organise

the FM's to suit. It's not rocket science, it's just common sense.

 

What would be excellent is more video from Chill's AC.

Camera on tail, wings and stick. ( can the videos be shown side by side? ...)

So that you can observe how much stick input is required for such and such.

Then you compare to the simulation.

 

In RC deskpilot where you can fiddle with all the variables you can fly your real RC plane and then

tweak the simulation to produce an FM that is close to the real RC plane.

This is what RoF actually needs to do. Fly, observe, tweak, compare. FOTC.

I vote that Chill is THE Dr1 tester for FC.....

 

and there are loads of video out there of real/fake/replica planes of the appropriate era for use in determining FM's.

Not to mention people who actually fly them etc etc.

 

So really we should be homing in on the better FM's for most of the popular planes...

 

I would love to see a good collection of N28 footage..... : - )

 

Salute!

 

Plank.

[Zooropa_Fly]

As far as the game goes, I don't expect much data can be garnered from a Dr1 fitted with an in-line engine..

 

Great vids though Chill and all the very best with what you're doing, very jealous !

[J2_Adam]

I didn't realize it was an inline! I thought it was horizintally opposed. 

[Arty_Effem]

 

 

First, very little downward elevator (forward pressure on stick) seems to be necessary to keep the RoF DR1 in level flight - as noted in the screenshot below:

 

RoF DR1 in level flight - .jpg

 

And that was at full speed - I suspect that even less down elevator would be required at a slower, cruise speed

 

 

I think we all know that to achieve level flight with the Dr1 with the joystick at neutral, requires a substantial offset applied to the response curve. What is less appreciated is that in the real world the resulting elevator deflection is not only necessary, but at flying speed is between difficult and impossible to achieve without breaking something. In RoF, the way to reconcile this situation is to regard the rendered control surface deflection solely as a representation of the force being applied, not the true amount of deflection achievable at flying speeds.

I suspect the reason things are done this way, is simply to stop players suspecting a problem when their controls don't reach full deflection at normal flying speeds.

[Panthercules]

Not sure what you mean by "the joystick at neutral" - if you mean "with the joystick centered", then yes, as the devs explained a long time ago many of the RoF planes are actually set up to have the neutral elevator position placed where the stick is slightly forward of "centered".  You can either try to change this by fiddling with response curves, or just accept it and hold the stick slightly forward of center when you want the elevator to be level/flat/neutral.

 

As to the separate question of whether the 3D representation of the elevator deflection is somehow skewed such that it makes the elevator look like it's depressed too far (more than it really would need to be to fly the plane level at full speed), I can't really say for sure what's going on with that.  When I did my test the other night and took that screenshot I posted above, I did note that it felt just fine as far as where my stick was being held while I was in cockpit flying level, but I was a little surprised at how far down the elevator appeared to be angled in external view in response to what was a very minimal forward stick pressure.  But in the end, how the thing feels/flys from the cockpit is way more important to me than how it looks from external side view like in that screenshot (unless it just looks crazy weird, which I don't consider to be happening in that screenshot).  But YMMV of course.

[Plank]

Gasp.

 

It's pretty obvious that there are some major flaws in the RoF way of doing some simple things.

 

Can someone please exaplain to the Devs that they have got a few things wrong and that they really need professional help.

 

If they just do the same things again in FC then they are a dead duck, and it really will be a flying circus. 

 

The proof is all here. It's not hard to understand.

 

I wager there is not one real plane on this planet which has to have the stick held so far forward to stop it from making such outrageous loops. None.

 

No real plane would be sold that does this.

 

Sure you can make planes tail heavy. Counter with a bit of stick fwd.

Or it tends to "climb", counter with a bit of stick fwd. Sure.

 

but what we have now is just plain absurd.

 

Essentially a non adjustable trim plane is going to be actually trimmed to suit it's normal operating speed.

Add a bit of shim here... etc.

This makes perfect sense.

Why have a plane trimmed for a speed you hardly ever use?

 

and sure the trim will change a bit with all of the normal variables changing.

but overall it should be air worthy when delivered...

and then tuned to the pilots weight, load etc etc.

Ask your ground crew exactly what it is they are doing...

 

It is essentially like a car that pulls to one side...

sure you can drive in a straight line but...

don't take your hands off the wheel.

 

and the curve fiddling in RoF is to compensate for crappy joysticks!

Not for the blinking crazy auto loop. Gasp.

 

When does common sense prevail???

 

Heck lets have planes you can actually trim in the hangar,

along with guns you can sight in yourself.

 

and relocatable ashtrays in the Nieuports, for the love of all things hot and covered in castor oil.

 

Look at all the Dr1 video clips on youtube: no sagging elevators, no auto loop and no jamming the stick forward to maintain a marginally sane attitude.

 

Then, we can argue about FM "tuning"... over a cold beer. or three.

 

Salute!

 

Plank.

[Chill31]

As far as the game goes, I don't expect much data can be garnered from a Dr1 fitted with an in-line engine..

 

Great vids though Chill and all the very best with what you're doing, very jealous !

 

Aerodynamics works, to a large extent, independent of the engine.  For example, have you ever seen a wind tunnel model?  They have neither engines nor propellers.  Here is a prime example:

 

The reality is that a LOT of data can be acquired from a Fokker fitted with a non-rotary engine.  Will it be as accurate as if it had a rotary  (soon to be rectified)?  Not quite.

 

I talked to a gentleman who has an Airdrome Airplanes 3/4 Fokker Dr1, which is a far cry from looking anything like the original.  In comparing the flight qualities of our airplanes, he was experiencing many of the same things, though at a different level.  The point here being that general design of an aircraft will yield similar reactions across a variety of airplane configurations.

 

The overall balance and flight characteristics of the airplane should be as close as we can get without having an original Dr1.  I can assure it is closer than anything that has been presented in any flight sim to date.  The model I uploaded for Flight Sim X to this thread flies the most like a Dr1 that I have experienced.  

 

 

 

I didn't realize it was an inline! I thought it was horizintally opposed. 

 

You are correct Adam!  It currently has a Lycoming O-320 160 Hp engine.  Aerodynamically, 160 Hp is not being used for propulsion due to the shorter (76 inch ) propeller.

[J2_Adam]

Chill, are you still getting that 80hp rotary? Should be a dramatic difference in performance from the 160 HO.

[Chill31]

Chill, are you still getting that 80hp rotary? Should be a dramatic difference in performance from the 160 HO.

I have the rotary in my hangar I am waiting on a propeller, a cowling, a fuel tank, and a few other bits. I should have most of these parts in hand by summer.

The performance should not be too much different. The 80 Rhone runs half the rpm, but at double the torque. It is turning a propeller 2 feet longer than the Is coming, so it is still moving about the same amount of air for propulsion.

[GrahamshereGT]

Plank, have you ever flown a real plane?

[Plank]

Yes.

I have approximately 15 min actual flying time.

Will get more when funds allow.

( It's not blinking cheap.)

 

S! P

[GrahamshereGT]

LOL plank, just pulling your chain mate. 15 min's hey, on your way to being a commercial pilot.

[Plank]

You swine! * blowing of raspberries and pretend antlers with hands thing *

 

S! P

[=HillBilly=]

You swine! * blowing of raspberries and pretend antlers with hands thing *

 

S! P

Do you mean like this?  doublefacepalm.jpg   16.44KB   0 downloads

[Zooropa_Fly]

No, he means this !

Attached Files

•  phffthrrrrrrp.jpg   9.04KB   0 downloads

[GrahamshereGT]

Plank.   ,,!,,

[Plank]

I fart in your general direction!

 

S! P

[Chill31]

This is likely the most exciting thing to happen in my WWI world, and perhaps in the WWI community at the moment.  

 

I just acquired a previously unknown 110 Le Rhone 9J for the Fokker Dr1! I do need a nose cover and a propeller hub for it if anyone knows where I might find one...

 

Restoration should start next year if I can get funds together for it by then.

Attached Files

•  20180714_150851.jpg   234.73KB   0 downloads

[piecost]

Fantastic. Good luck with the project

[SeaW0lf]

That is sweet man, congrats! Godspeed on the project!

[J2_Bidu]

Woah good luck for your project!

[Stumble]

Please post pictures of your progress. Would love to see how it goes.

 

S!

[mikschi]

This is likely the most exciting thing to happen in my WWI world, and perhaps in the WWI community at the moment.  

 

I just acquired a previously unknown 110 Le Rhone 9J for the Fokker Dr1! I do need a nose cover and a propeller hub for it if anyone knows where I might find one...

 

Restoration should start next year if I can get funds together for it by then.

 

Wondering if there is progress on that project. Would you share some pictures?

 

Here is some update on the digital model. I attached my reworked smoke effects which should now be more realistic than my previous attempts (only white smoke of course). Further some external spotplane views. Everthing in the readme.

 

I also changed some entries in the aircraft.cfg for better ground handling and would be interested in your thoughts. If you want to try them here are the 3 lines that differ to your aircraft.cfg posted on page 2 of this thread.

 

[contact_points]

point.0= 1, 0.797, -2.537, -6.580, 984, 1, 1.126, 21.000, 0.126, 2.000, 0.500, 0.000, 0.000, 2

 

[piston_engine]

max_rpm_mechanical_efficiency_scalar =1.30000

idle_rpm_mechanical_efficiency_scalar =0.58000

 

Best,

Christoph

Attached Files

•  Smoke Effects and Views NEOQB Fokker Dr1.zip   6.45KB   0 downloads