Author Topic: Axis Flaps  (Read 5256 times)

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Axis Flaps
« Reply #120 on: December 04, 2004, 08:25:58 PM »
Quote
It's time to unbunch those Lederhosen.


You show your ignorance with comments like this...

 
Quote
How is having a realistic approach to the flap modeling in the game the same as wanting to fly the plane beyond it's limits?


Hitech has a realistic approach to fights not flaps.

Quote
Penalty for using flaps? That suggestion is way too dumb to argue.


Whew!  No wonder.....

Crumpp
« Last Edit: December 04, 2004, 08:36:51 PM by Crumpp »

Offline tikky

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
Axis Flaps
« Reply #121 on: December 04, 2004, 08:38:12 PM »
If HTC has a "realistic approach" to flaps, then everything should stay as-is right...? (ie no need to revise 109/190 flaps which would almost equal to that request for non-auto retract on 38s, '51s, ect ect)
« Last Edit: December 04, 2004, 08:50:53 PM by tikky »

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Axis Flaps
« Reply #122 on: December 04, 2004, 08:40:26 PM »
Quote
If HTC has a "realistic approach" to flaps, then everything should stay as is right...? (ie no need to revise 109/190 flaps)


What a blunt tool.  One of the P38 crowd run off and grab an alter ego?

Crumpp

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Axis Flaps
« Reply #123 on: December 04, 2004, 08:55:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp


Hitech has a realistic approach to fights not flaps.

 
Crumpp




:rolleyes:


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Axis Flaps
« Reply #124 on: December 04, 2004, 08:57:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
What a blunt tool.  One of the P38 crowd run off and grab an alter ego?

Crumpp



tikky had a very valid point but I guess your lederhosen bunching up like they do has cut off the circulation to your head.  



ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Axis Flaps
« Reply #125 on: December 04, 2004, 09:05:50 PM »
Quote
tikky had a very valid point but I guess your lederhosen bunching up like they do has cut off the circulation to your head.


No Tikky posted a flamebait.  
Hitech will sort out the flaps based on the facts.

Crumpp

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Axis Flaps
« Reply #126 on: December 04, 2004, 09:58:04 PM »
So the flaps needs to be revised only for the Luftwhiner planes?  Hypocrisy is strong in you young luftwhiner.



ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Axis Flaps
« Reply #127 on: December 04, 2004, 10:08:35 PM »
Quote
Ack Ack says:
So the flaps needs to be revised only for the Luftwhiner planes?


It's amazing what can be done with English....

How do you get that from:

Quote
Hitech will sort out the flaps based on the facts.


Enlighten, please.  

Obviously you have run out of facts to contribute to this thread and the matter can be considered closed.

Crumpp

Offline Cobra412

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1393
Axis Flaps
« Reply #128 on: December 04, 2004, 10:34:55 PM »
I understand what you guys are saying but you also cannot deny the fact that the 250 limit stated in the manual is merely a warning.  It is not rock solid set in stone that above 250 you are guaranteed to have damage to the system.  I don't know how to code but if it were possible to generate a random failure of the flaps above 250 would seem more realistic.  If it's not possible to do then it's not possible.  I think I'd much rather have random damage above listed failure limits than an auto retract function that never existed back then.  

We have aircraft that consistantly go over thier max allowable G loads on a weekly basis.  Does that mean we are replacing those items that had been over stressed?  No it does not.  Frankly I've only seen 2 or 3 occassions where we had to do anymore than just inspect the stressed areas for damage in the 10 years I've been working them.  The other occassions we had minor to major damage but it did not keep the plane from flying home.  There was no catastrophic failures that ripped wings off even under loads almost 200% over the maximum stress limits imposed by the engineers of the F-15.  Even with one of the highest level over gs ever recorded on the F-15 at a -7gs the planes flaps were merely hanging on their hinge points and wedged into the external fuel tanks it was carrying and the the wings required replacement.  This was on a standard CBT load out with CFTs, left/right wing pylons (w/external fuel tanks) and a centerline pylon.  The plane still flew home without incident and landed safely.

Do you honestly think that if in the heat of battle these WWII crews wouldn't stretch their planes beyond the factory limits if it meant the difference between life and death?  I'd have to say without a doubt yes they would and they'd take that chance regardless of the warnings posted or possibility of damage if it meant they'd make it home.  It's no doubt that many folks here would prefer to be as realistic as possible when it comes to atleast the flight models of these planes.  

Crumpp you yourself have shown that you prefer it be more realistic day in and day out so I don't understand why you'd try to fight something that is in fact a possibility and not set in stone.  No one here is asking to have flaps running at 50 or even 25 % over what is listed as a dangerous situation.  They prefer that they have the option of taking the chance and if it kills them it kills them.  It's about taking a chance and pushing your plane beyond it's limits even if it means you won't be coming home.  Crews do this even in todays birds.  

Kweassa as I've stated previously in this post it's not set in stone.  There would have to be some kind of random generator that would trigger once you went above the set limits.  This is as close to being realistic as you can get.  How much the system would allow over the limit as a whole and how random the failures would be is up to HTC.  Again it may not even be feasible to do or it may not be possible at all, if it's not then so be it.  People are just making this out to be we (the community)want super uber planes when it's not that at all.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2004, 10:44:33 PM by Cobra412 »

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Axis Flaps
« Reply #129 on: December 04, 2004, 11:23:14 PM »
Quote
It's about taking a chance and pushing your plane beyond it's limits even if it means you won't be coming home. Crews do this even in todays birds.


Absolutely.  Your argument is very valid Cobra and it would be more realistic for the flaps.

I don't think it would make the combats more realistic.  In games were flaps limits are "flexible" you have to admit that "sim pilots" drop flaps way too often and worse keep those flaps down way too long.

I do want things to be realistic as possible.    

Crumpp

Offline Cobra412

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1393
Axis Flaps
« Reply #130 on: December 04, 2004, 11:49:45 PM »
Crumpp I do agree with you there.  I think that's the developers problem for not putting in some random failure system when above critical levels.  If folks used it constantly and the failures were setup in a way that would deter them from using that option unless absolutely necessary then it may not be so gamey.  

As I've stated before though I don't know how to code so it may not be possible but here's just an example.  

The system would trigger the random failures generator when above item xs limitation.  The generator would reference a log file that kept telemetry information on the flaps usage and airspeed at the time of that components usage.  The flaps would start the log cycle anytime they were lowered.  If the log file shows excessive use above item xs limitation then random generator will go to a high output which will cause more random failures over a shorter period of time due to excessive usage above it's limitations.  If the log shows a low usage above item xs limitation values then the random failure generator would go to a low output and have less random failures while above the limitations.  Basically the setup would monitor how often it's used above certain limitations and determine whether or not random failures should be set at a higher or lower output rate.  

This probably isn't possible to do and if it were it would probably be more work than it's worth to code.  But this would keep folks from just slapping down those flaps all the time and hoping that they just don't have a failure.  It would have it's own checks and balances to keep from just gaming the game and actually only going above limitations when it's absolutely necessary.  If you disregard the fact that it's put in there as basically a save your arse function and use it constantly you'll pay the price.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Axis Flaps
« Reply #131 on: December 05, 2004, 12:06:59 AM »
I agree that would be a good system if it could be implemented.

Crumpp

Offline Murdr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5608
      • http://479th.jasminemaire.com
Axis Flaps
« Reply #132 on: December 05, 2004, 04:43:14 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
AH is not an artificial flap fest like IL2. Why? Hitech has designed the game so that you cannot "game the game" with them. It's stupid and totally unrealistic to think even "combat" flaps were dropped and used for sustained turn fights. Hitech is right, not folks lobbying for their favourite plane!...........

Why there are those who do not see this!
That is exactly what is going on. P38 pilots want to fly their plane beyond it's limits, nothing more.
 
Crumpp, of course low speed dog fighting in the 38 was discouraged, especially in the PTO with the nimble jap planes.  However when you say "It's stupid and totally unrealistic to think even 'combat' flaps were dropped and used for sustained turn fights." that just doesnt match up with how things happend.  Combat did degenerate into less than by the book conditions.

 I specifically recall accounts from the 475th on how McGuire preached never to dogfight the jap planes and then would proceed to do it on a regular basis in combat.  Tilly described that more often than not, an engagment would begin around 20K, and deteriorate to everyone "milling around on the deck".  He also praised that the 38 was at its best "at low altitudes and low airspeeds of 90mph.  Tilly's 2nd victory aginst an oscar was a full 360 "on the deck, in a verticle bank, the airspeed under 90 mph...That turn was nothing more or less than a controlled stall."
That is just a little "stupid and totally unrealistice accounts" off the top of my head.

I also previously posted in this thread an example of where one of McGuire's wingmans plane showed significant abuse just trying to keep up with Mac in the initial part of a few engagment.  The point being that while there lives depended on taking care of their planes, that did not prevail when faced with the choice of being shot, or wringing everything they could out of their bird.

In AH a frustrating example where I would like to see a similar choice is in a low speed 38 loop fight.  If the apex of the loop is around 120, the speed at the bottom peaks over 150 mph by 1-5 mph for about 1-2 seconds.  The max full flap speed is 150.  Auto-anything does not account for the full scope of the situation.  The situation may be that without interference by auto-retract the engagment would be over before the next apex.  Or it may not.  Only the pilot can assess the risk/cost/benifit and decide what action will keep said pilot alive.  In this example I dont see where auto-retract either causing a fatal spin, or forcing the player to lose position makes "realistic fights" when 1.  The real plane would not react that way.  and  2.  The limit is pushed so little in time and stress perameters, that it defies engineering standards to say that there must be an absolute failure in that situation.

Lastly, I made the same arguments months ago (and reposted a snipet here) as cobra has stated here.  The only difference between what the two of us said was were he suggested a (what I'll call) "stress log", I suggested a rapid sample rate for a damage condition.  Both are geared to "the more you abuse it, the more likely you break it".  I dont quite see where you find such a difference that when someone else says it, that its a "good system", but I pleased to find you are able to see the point and resonableness of a suggestion when your own bias's are not blocking your view.

Offline Murdr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5608
      • http://479th.jasminemaire.com
Axis Flaps
« Reply #133 on: December 05, 2004, 05:01:42 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa
Take out the auto-retraction and it's not gonna make any kind of differance at all. As much as the P-38s can hold on to the flaps a little longer, the other planes will also be able to hang on to their flaps a little longer, or deploy them a little earlier.
I havnt seen anyone here in this regard advocating doing anything to deployment speeds.  Its all about what should happen when overspeeding occurs, after they're deployed.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Axis Flaps
« Reply #134 on: December 05, 2004, 07:36:04 AM »
Quote
to see the point and resonableness of a suggestion when your own bias's are not blocking your view.


I have no bias.  You only percieve bias due to your own views.



 
Quote
However when you say "It's stupid and totally unrealistic to think even 'combat' flaps were dropped and used for sustained turn fights." that just doesnt match up with how things happend.


BS.  Read Lockheeds warning again.  Read the POH.  Ask a veteran.  

This is EXACTLY why I am against changing the system unless HTC did two things:

1.  Increased the performance penalty so that when using flaps you A/C has a narrower window of beneficial performance.  Based on A/C design.  Some planes could use them longer than others.

2.  Flap usage would be tracked like kills.  The more you drop flaps out of POH the higher the chances they will break.  Abuser's are eventually penalized with a 100 percent chance they will break for a specified time period.

Do I foresee Hitech implementing this?  No.  What does it really do for the overall game except make a few fights "lucky" by allowing them to exceed POH recommendations for a few seconds.  Planes will be able to do things they "normally" could not.

Crumpp