Author Topic: radiator thingies (Read 811 times)

zmeg · « **Reply #15 on:** October 26, 2003, 05:24:42 PM »

Torque roll was a very real problem with almost all WW2 AC, a Zero for example could barely roll against the torque, thats why the F4U was able to dominate them. As for the EZ mode button (aka combat trim) I for 1 would love to see it deleted. The new FM is a vast improvement I just hope the crybabys don't kill it.

Ecliptik · « **Reply #16 on:** October 26, 2003, 05:46:04 PM »

Quote

So many good games that have been dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denomenator Day of Defeat

Uhm, did you play DoD back in the days of beta 1.0 - 1.3? With insta-prone, recoilless weapons, rapid-fire grenade throwing, and semi-auto sniper rifles?? You're saying it's more arcadey now?.

BenDover · « **Reply #17 on:** October 26, 2003, 06:00:27 PM »

I'm talking about 2.0+ you dolt, 1.3 was a different game with all the changes.

Ecliptik · « **Reply #18 on:** October 26, 2003, 08:07:34 PM »

The game was made more simmish after 3.0, in my opinion, though it was never meant to be a sim anyway.

As for combat trim in AH, trimming is just as unrealistic with combat trim off as it is with combat trim on. It just depends which extreme you want to go to.

BenDover · « **Reply #19 on:** October 27, 2003, 02:06:23 AM »

So you mean in the real war you had more chance of staying alive AND killing the other guy by running around like a potato peeler, than sneaking about?

Plus it feels like SMGs got neutured, but i think that might be a rubber bullet problem on my end.

I also see alot more of the 'pop out-snap shot-point and click-bull****' with kars and enfields than i did in 3.1!

Biggles · « **Reply #20 on:** October 28, 2003, 10:30:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by BenDover
I'm talking about 2.0+ you dolt, 1.3 was a different game with all the changes.

I sense a new "dolt" thread coming out of this.

Kweassa · « **Reply #21 on:** October 28, 2003, 10:42:51 AM »

.. back to the topic..

I think at least the radiator management seems like a good idea, even for AH.

Even IL-2/FB doesn't model all detailed aspects of different engine management styles, and I very specifically notice the 1C crew are having problems in depicting certain aspects of the engine.

But the radiator control alone, and management of engine heat, should be fun enough.

Instead of what we have now, which the WEP automatically turns itself off when in 'danger zone', I'd like to see that as player controlled. Also, modelling different aspects of heating situations might also be fun - such as low airspeed fights with high throttle causing faster engine heating and etc.

NHawk · « **Reply #22 on:** October 28, 2003, 10:52:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by jodgi
Could you make a high powered bird just nose over if you applied full throttle when at standstill? Or maybe I should say wing/flip over since we're talking of torque?

I'd still like to see some documentation on this.

After talking to my father, who was a WWII navy aviation mechanic, I'm convinced it's a myth until I see documentation otherwise.

jodgi · « **Reply #23 on:** October 28, 2003, 12:50:42 PM »

I've read it so many times, I've started to take it for granted.

Can't provide you with hard evidence though.

mold · « **Reply #24 on:** October 31, 2003, 12:35:33 PM »

I'm not a pilot myself, but I've read Stick and Rudder".

I believe the prop "torque" effect is actually not the reverse reaction torque from the prop. Think about it--the prop's rotational moment is far less than the wing's, making it relatively insignificant in terms of roll effects. It is not the gyroscopic precession effect either (conservation of angular momentum), although I believe precession has a larger kinetic effect than reaction torque.

No, the "torque" effect is actually a result of the vertically-asymmetric fin, which catches one half of the prop's spiraling slipstream and ignores the other half. This causes the plane the yaw, not roll; and yawing is the actual problem commonly known as prop "torque" effect.