Simviation Forum

Jul 6^th, 2006 at 3:11am

an-225 Ex Member

Do you think we'll be able to assign flightplans to aircraft and watch them fly above the 100k limit?Imagine a 747 at fl 1500! Shocked

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Jul 6^th, 2006 at 7:53am

flyboy 28 Offline
Colonel
Jacksonville, FL

Posts: 13323

I'd imagine it would stall.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Jul 6^th, 2006 at 10:22am

Jakemaster Ex Member

Quote:

I'd imagine it would stall.

It would stall AND the engines would die

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Jul 6^th, 2006 at 12:21pm

Cobra Offline
Colonel
haha, I was twatted.....
Bournemouth, England

Gender:
Posts: 1978

I was gonna say that....but i doubt AI actually will have anything to do with the physics engine in the game will they??? Arnt they just moving objects?

Dunno why you would wanna though Tongue

JAA/FAA PPL + Night Rating!&&&&Quad Core 6600 2.4GHz ~ nVidia 8800GTX ~ 4GB DDR2 RAM 800MHz ~ Sound Blaster X-Fi 7.1 ~ Samsung Pebble 20" ~ Logitech 5.1 Surround Sound&&&&&&&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Jul 6^th, 2006 at 9:03pm

an-225 Ex Member

I also mean Space Shuttle missions.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Jul 7^th, 2006 at 10:24pm

Ashton Lawson Offline
Colonel
FS Water Configurator
Programmer
Phuket, Thailand

Gender:
Posts: 1211

Its definately possible.

If you download the current traffic toolbox SDK, there are take-off length parameters, speed, cruise alt, and more stuff like that.

The actually AI aircraft have no relation to the actual physics engine, otherwise the whole simulation will slow down. The AI flight paths are basically invisible roads for the AI to follow exactly. Which is why you can make an F-14 use only 50 metres of runway to takeoff, and land.

Besides, should all the AI actually have real-physics applied to them, there would be so many processes to calculate the behaviour, and so many processes to control the 'virtual pilot' in the AI. And thats a huge load on YOUR PC's processor.

&&FS Water Configurator+ has new modifications in the works, plus DirectX 10, Service Pack&&1, and Radeon HD 3+ Series support.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Jul 8^th, 2006 at 7:18am

Daube Offline
Colonel
Alternative bloomer
Nice (FR)

Gender:
Posts: 5833

A little bit off-topic, but in the latest X-Plane updates I read that they have implemented physic engine-dependent AI. I wonder if MS wil follow fo the next FS

Anyway you're right, this would be very heavy on the proc....excepted if they enable it ony for takeoffs and landings, maybe....

Got bloom ?
Got mountains ?
Got damage ?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Jul 8^th, 2006 at 7:53am

Ashton Lawson Offline
Colonel
FS Water Configurator
Programmer
Phuket, Thailand

Gender:
Posts: 1211

There would not be much point of applying physics to take-offs and landings. Nowadays huge jets are on autopilot even when taxiing. The only physics I would apply, is the wind speed and direction, so planes have to re-adjust for the slip. Otherwise I'd leave MS with their current configuration. Wink

In packages with Aircraft Carriers, it is conveintient to hav no physics so that you can emulate a true catapult-assisted takeoff, and arrested landings. I think MS hav gon the rite way with their AI system.

There is still one Issue i'd like MS to modify tho. When I crash into an AI plane, on ground or in mid-air, I want the other plane to stop, or go on fire, rather than just carry on with its buisness like nothing happened. Angry

&&FS Water Configurator+ has new modifications in the works, plus DirectX 10, Service Pack&&1, and Radeon HD 3+ Series support.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Jul 11^th, 2006 at 7:31pm

Ben R Offline
Colonel
Audere Est Facere
ipswich

Gender:
Posts: 1196

yeah..was landing with FSpassengers....san fran intl to london in a 747 and i was 350 nm from base..some jerk off wanted to play and crashed into me..i was very upset =[

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Jul 11^th, 2006 at 10:56pm

Jakemaster Ex Member

Quote:

yeah..was landing with FSpassengers....san fran intl to london in a 747 and i was 350 nm from base..some jerk off wanted to play and crashed into me..i was very upset =[

You were still 350 miles away, that kinda thing happens to me on final.

That is why you should always turn off crashes, I know its not realistic but why take chances with AI/MP?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Jul 12^th, 2006 at 12:56am

Daube Offline
Colonel
Alternative bloomer
Nice (FR)

Gender:
Posts: 5833

Quote:

There would not be much point of applying physics to take-offs and landings. Nowadays huge jets are on autopilot even when taxiing. The only physics I would apply, is the wind speed and direction, so planes have to re-adjust for the slip. Otherwise I'd leave MS with their current configuration. Wink

I was thinking about turbulences also, and all kind of stuff that could give trouble not only to you but also to the AI, leading to go-arounds etc...

Quote:

In packages with Aircraft Carriers, it is conveintient to hav no physics so that you can emulate a true catapult-assisted takeoff, and arrested landings.

Could be handled by a correct physical ngine, which FS doesn't have at the moment unfortunatelly :/
But I agree with you in this one.

Quote:

There is still one Issue i'd like MS to modify tho. When I crash into an AI plane, on ground or in mid-air, I want the other plane to stop, or go on fire, rather than just carry on with its buisness like nothing happened. Angry

Huuu that sounds like politically incorrect...you know, that would allow to create some special AI planes very small, very fast, that would crash into another plane to destroy it...what's the name again...ah yeah, "missiles" Grin

Got bloom ?
Got mountains ?
Got damage ?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Jul 12^th, 2006 at 4:06am

PisTon Ex Member

Quote:

There would not be much point of applying physics to take-offs and landings. Nowadays huge jets are on autopilot even when taxiing.

Not really Wink

They only do that on roll-out when they have done a autoland

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Jul 12^th, 2006 at 8:45am

vololiberista Offline
Colonel
Vieni in Italia

Posts: 1042

Why would you want to fly a 747 above 100,000ft?
On a hot day their rate of climb fully loaded is so low they can barely make it to 10ft!!!!!!!!!!!
Vololiberista

Andiamo in Italia&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #13 - Jul 12^th, 2006 at 9:11am

Nexus Offline
Colonel
The greater of two evils...

Gender:
Posts: 3282

I guess Volo has never seen an A343 at MTOW at Gran Canaria airport, 39c OAT Wink

I swear that thing got passed by a frigging kite.
Slowmo climber, for sure.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #14 - Jul 12^th, 2006 at 9:49am

vololiberista Offline
Colonel
Vieni in Italia

Posts: 1042

Whwn I was in london i lived under the rwy 09R SIDs 5dme downrange. 747's on a hot day were frequently still below the 1,500ft legal minimum.
I remember a hot day at Gatwick many years ago watching a Cathay Pacific 747 en route for Hong Kong rotate "in the red zone!!!!" His V1 must have been whilst he was still taxiing!!!!
Vololiberista

Andiamo in Italia&&

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: