HTC, please look at these films

[AKSeaWulfe]

 http://smilecwm.tripod.com/scorchio/index.htm

There ya go BaneX.

-SW

[mrfish]

 

Originally posted by Wardog:
HB..

 I think he will be happier in a sim like AW3 that im sure he thinks is perfect FM, Damage Modeling, Balistics Modeling and Whiner Modeling.

Dog out...

- whiner modeling! i like that - it's like whole new science to argue over with it's own set of predictable outcomes. hmmmm....i think you are onto something wd

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Karnak:
I was simply pointing out that you are distorting the issue by exagerating what is happening and using other time honored methods to flood disinformation into a debate in order to achieve your desired result.

Excuse me, tell me how.

Where did I exagerate?...quote any message in this forum or the ones in the Aircraft and vehicles forum regarding the FM thing.

Please I challenge you to do it. You have a film on a niki doing 27 loops consecutive, just airborne, and winning altitude.

You have maverick saying that he has done a loop with a just airborne typhoon.

I point that both things are roadkill.

Where am I exagerating?...

for Hblair and wardog...you aren't worth one single second of my life. So I wont waste it on paying attention to your insults.

[Karnak]

RAM,
The specific exaggeration (it could be considered more of a "misinformation" thing than an exaggeration) is the "just after airborne" claim.

This implies that it does loops immediately after a normal take off (I don't know, it might, but these tests here were done in different circumstances).  That statement doesn't acknowledge that the aircraft was held on the ground until it had reached a speed of 170mph.  This is not a normal takeoff speed for a prop driven WWII fighter.  A WWII prop driven fighter would normally take off at just over 100mph.  By holding it on the ground until the aircraft reached 170mph they rendered the take off point moot.  It isn't really a take off anymore.  It is effectively flying at 5ft above the ground until it reaches and airspeed of 170mph.

I don't have the technical information to discuss whether or not these aircraft could loop from 170mph and then keep looping, gaining altitude while they do it.  Because of that, I want to reinforce that I am not entering this debate on the pro-loop or anti-loop side.  I just want the test to be discussed as what it was.  It was not a loop done just after take off and so that should not be used as an argument.

1000th POST!!!!

Sisu
-Karnak

[Wardog]

RAM..

For $10.00 a month you can go play AW3, at least there you can justify 2500 negitive post about it FM and everything else.

Think youll be happier there!

   

Dog out......

[eagl]

J.E. Johnson has an anecdote in his book about consecutive loops in a spitfire...  Seems that the plane tended to stall and spin out of the third consecutive loop.  27 consecutive loops while building energy is unrealistic for most planes in AH, however since most AH planes can perform this feat, it's not exactly unfair.  

If you want something to gripe about, check out the glide performance for various planes.  For example, a P-47 seems to be able to glide farther than a spitfire, even though the spit has lower wing loading and a slightly more efficient wing shape (the elliptical wing is highly efficient).  This seems to indicate to me that the static drag of the spit might be a tad high, while the induced drag seems to be a little low.  Horsepower is likely increased as well to make top speed and climb rate numbers match up too.

Either that, or the windmilling prop drag numbers are a tad high with this spit.  I haven't tried messing with prop pitch while gliding because I'm out of keys and the keymapper won't let me use shift or ctrl modifiers for prop rpm (bug?  The shift, ctrl, and alt keys just disappear when I select rpm function)


------------------
eagl <squealing Pigs> BYA
Oink Oink To War!!!

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by eagl:
J.E. Johnson has an anecdote in his book about consecutive loops in a spitfire...  Seems that the plane tended to stall and spin out of the third consecutive loop.  27 consecutive loops while building energy is unrealistic for most planes in AH, however since most AH planes can perform this feat, it's not exactly unfair.  

who is talking about fairness here?...I am talking that those planes COULDNT do that!, then there is something wrong in the FM that allows them to do it...torque is way undermodelled and E-keeping too good.

So, now that every plane is porked, its fair? was it fair in 1.03 when all planes couldnt turn?...

fix it, please.

Karnak...lol, ok, the entry was at 170mph, but it was a just airborne plane, a 170mph plane doing 27 consecutive loops while gaining E...

It's not an exageration, its BS...

[AKSeaWulfe]

I just loaded up an N1K2 with 50% gas and took off at 110MPH, flew level along the runway until I hit 170MPH then went into a loop. I managed 3 before I ran into the ground.. using the same stick force throughout the 3 loops. At the apex of the loop I barely managed 100MPH, and at the bottom it gained speed up to 200MPH. An object that climbs to a higher alt than it started and falls down with powered flight is certain to gain more speed than it started off with.
-SW

[RAM]

the test was done with 25% fuel

and if you dont believe the 27 loop thing, take a look at the film.

[sling322]

   

heh heh....just testing the smiley link.  sorry to intrude.

[This message has been edited by sling322 (edited 12-05-2000).]

[NUTTZ]

I hate to bring this thread to the top, but my imput...

RAM, first off let me appologize for my quick tempered outburst to you in a past thread.

You, maybe correct that the torque modeling and the E retention maybe not be right on the money, But i think your missing the big picture. (I can't speak for HTC so this is MY Interpretation) AH is IMO the closest to real flight models of any WW2 flight sym i've played. Notice the word CLOSEST, If you model these planes to the way they flew IRL, I doubt HTC could fill the arena, I for one KNOW I could never IRL fly ANY WW2 fighter. HTC needs to balance the FM with FUN.  I think you would, as many others would like to see a real FM true to these planes, But others want fun without all the hassels of learning to be a real life WW2 fighter jock, understanding OIL temp,hydrolics,gunnery,and all the learning that goes with it. The "slider bar" of FUN and filling the arenas and TRUE FM, HAS to have a happy medium. Slide it to far to FUN, and it becomes arcadish,, slide it too far to true FM's and is not fun and there goes the paying customer. You...are one that wants to see the True FM, that is YOUR preference. I for one like to see a 'Close" FM but retaining the "fun factor"  IMO 1.04 has the perfect mix, I'm not saying some things don't need adjustment, but for where it is right now, I LOVE IT!

NUTTZ  

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by NUTTZ:
But i think your missing the big picture. (I can't speak for HTC so this is MY Interpretation) AH is IMO the closest to real flight models of any WW2 flight sym i've played. Notice the word CLOSEST

I hate to say this. BUt I can take pre-1.04 posts by lazs and F4UDOA that got answers just like that-and then resulted that 1.03 FM was way wrong.

Sorry, but I dont think that the FM now is close to real life. And not by far.

[Wardog]

This is getting old, fast!

Air Warrior (AW_DOS,AW4W,AW2,AW3) 1986 to 2000. 16 years this has been online and RAM, guess what.. There still working on FM, Damage Modeling, Ballistics Modeling.

Warbirds 94/95 to 2000 6 years and there still working on FM,Damage Modeling, Ballistics Modeling.

Aces High 99 to 2000 1 year. Give the guys here a break and let them get on with there work, They will get around to checking the FMs with available data. But they have a massive amount of work to do.

RAM, why do you think that AH will be perfect out the gate and only after 1 year? If you can do better then please do. Consistantly whining about the same thing over and over again will get you nothing but bad reviews from the rest of the community.

Let HT and crew get there work done in there own priority, you whining will not change there priority.

Dog out.........

[Staga]

Wardog it sounds like you too admit theres something weird in Nikis FM?

[RAM]

   

Originally posted by Wardog:
RAM, why do you think that AH will be perfect out the gate and only after 1 year? If you can do better then please do. Consistantly whining about the same thing over and over again will get you nothing but bad reviews from the rest of the community.
.

As the first semi-decent post from you in this thread I will take the time to answer you.

I dont say AH has to be perfect. But if a defect is SO clearly pointed out as it is now with the FM and the torque thing I point at it and say "please fix it"

Note I always said "HTC PLEASE fix it"

Note again the "please", if you didnt note it yet.

On another matter, to point out problems is NOT A whine. To say "after what I saw I think that..." is NOT a whine. To know that things are porked you DONT need a film. The niki in 1.04 FM does things that people simply see astonished, and noone needs a film to back that up.

 If everyone would stay still and say "yes" to everything we see in MA then there would be no development nor bug fixing. If it wasnt for Lazs, F4UDOA and all those guys who came here and said that the emperor was nude everyone would still be here saying "the emperor is dressed, what a beautiful dress the emperor wears!"...including me.

I learned a lot from that, seems that few people more learned that AH is NOT the apex and the most perfect thing in the world, and that pointing out problems and bugs, and FM things, is NOT to be destructive.

In fact, and in my own opinion I think I am doing a lot for AH in my way. People here call me destructive, while what I want are things to be corrected. SO,then, I love to be "destructive".

 There is a bug, and I point it out.

Still you call that "to whine". curious dicctionary you have, wardog    

BTW you are implicitly admitting AH's FM has a problem.That's Good.

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-05-2000).]