Question on VTBs F-16 in LOMAC

"How To" by our Pilot Staff
Post Reply
Turkanator
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:13 pm

Question on VTBs F-16 in LOMAC

Post by Turkanator » Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:13 pm

If I understand it correctly the VTBs F-16 is really a heavy modified flyable F-15 Strike Eagle. Is this why it appears that the F-16s appears to be floating above the ground in the Live at VFAT 2007 on takeoff or landing?

Thanks,
User avatar
Tailhook
Virtual Thunderbird Alumnus
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Post by Tailhook » Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:42 pm

Not an F-15E but just the F-15C. The mod overwrites the flyable F-15C with the F-16C, hence the size difference. That's one of the main reasons I assume they wanted a new model so they wouldn't appear as if their floating a foot off the ground. :)
Image
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:34 pm

Tailhook wrote:That's one of the main reasons I assume they wanted a new model so they wouldn't appear as if their floating a foot off the ground. :)
That was only a distant second to the original model being incredibly ugly and inaccurate. Malignant did a great job with our quality assurance, and thanks to Kato it's no longer "hovering"! (Although, everyhing's a compromise between improvements and *new* drawbacks - just like in the real aviation world, nothing comes without a price). :D
User avatar
Blaze
Posts: 669
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Post by Blaze » Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:09 pm

Lawndart wrote:That was only a distant second to the original model being incredibly ugly and inaccurate.
It wasn't that bad (well besides the paint, pylons, floating, speedbrake bug, no afterburner...ok yea it was pretty rough!) :P Well the new Blk-52 is amazing, once again well done Kato, Malignant, and everyone else involved. Out of curiosity, are there *new* drawbacks with the Blk-52? :|
Design is all about finding solutions within constraints.
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:52 pm

Sort of...

Since the flight model is inherited from the F-15, its CG or point where all axes intersect, is located a slight amount above where the F-16's longitudinal axis sit on the visual model. Therefore the plane of rotation, both laterally in the X-axis and longitudinally in the Y-axis, isn't "pure" (i.e. does not coincide perfectly with the visual model). The axes would coincide perfectly if the jets were enlarged to a point where the wheels touch the ground, although that creates some other undesirable control effects (especially in rolling maneuvers) and ridiculously large looking jets on the ramp. If the jets are placed where the CG truly is, the wheels will "float" assuming properly sized jets, and although this is the most realistic (and "pure") placement as far as controllability, the sacrifice is obvious to everyone. The distance the visual CG is offset from the true CG location with our Block 52 model is small enough that it's worth the compromise to have the jets sit properly on the ground with the wheels on the pavement, but as you can tell it comes at a price too in aircraft behavior about the axes (visually)... but hey, at least our fans have stopped moaning and complaining about "floating wheels" for now! :wink:

Most people don't notice anything wrong with the show (even with side effects as mentioned above), but everyone notices something wheels not touching the pavement!

Unfortunately the location of the flight model CG is hardcoded for each airplane in Lock On. This means an almost unnoticeable arm/momentum exists for every stick movement about the longitudinal or lateral axes in the case of any 3D models sized to their real dimensions and visually moved to sit on the ground (except for those 3D models already part of Lock On out of the box; such as the A-10, F-15, SU-27 etc.). Only the Z-axis is exempt from any CG offset with add-on 3D models of other airplanes. In the case of some of the smaller aircraft out there, such as an A-4, F-5 or L-39, the offset from the CG can be even larger than that of the F-16 if the airplane is to retain its realistic size and appear visually correct in game.

Hope that made some sense! :? :lol:
Last edited by Lawndart on Thu Apr 16, 2009 7:45 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Blaze
Posts: 669
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Post by Blaze » Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:59 pm

Yea I get what you're puttin down :P, and watching the VFAT 08 stream, when the plane rolls if you look closely you'll see it, but only if you are looking for it. ;) Most noticeable when looking at the nozzle, but at the same time barely noticable.
Lawndart wrote:Hope that made some sense! :? :lol:
Hope I'm making sense! :lol:
Design is all about finding solutions within constraints.
Post Reply