Author Topic: Elevator loading ratio list please (Read 2194 times)

Bronk · « **Reply #15 on:** November 16, 2007, 04:51:16 AM »

See Rule #5

Urchin · « **Reply #16 on:** November 16, 2007, 05:53:34 AM »

Nothing wrong with the 109s in the game, other than the cockpit bars. I've got beams in my walls that aren't that thick.

I'd rate the K-4 in the top 5 fighters easily, probably top 3.

The 190s on the other hand, just aren't good fighters. They never have been. They weren't in real life. In real life, the 190s were generally marginally faster than their opponents, at low altitude. They were never more manueverable (unless one counts a half roll and screaming dive towards the ground as a 'manuever') In real life, kills were nearly always made on unsuspecting targets. That isn't to say they the guy who got shot down wasn't engaged, he may have been fixated on his "target" and never saw the guy who blindsided him, but I guarantee you that combat in real life was not 1v1, 2v1, or Xv1. It was between two groups of planes, and it would probably make even the most timid pilots in the MA look like they were suicidally agressive.

schlowy2 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 16, 2007, 06:50:21 AM »

See Rule #5

Urchin · « **Reply #18 on:** November 16, 2007, 06:58:56 AM »

Tangent..

I did mention I have a degree in Math, didn't I?

I'd be impressed if you could explain to me the concept of the integral, not merely pull an example off a Calc 1 cheat sheet.

schlowy2 · « **Reply #19 on:** November 16, 2007, 07:00:15 AM »

See Rule #5

Urchin · « **Reply #20 on:** November 16, 2007, 07:03:38 AM »

Alright, good little first year Calc student.

The integral of the sec(U)^2 = tan(U) + C.

Happy?

schlowy2 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 16, 2007, 07:07:02 AM »

See Rule #5

Urchin · « **Reply #22 on:** November 16, 2007, 07:10:23 AM »

No, for Bernoulli you've moved up to a sophomore, Diff Eq.

Only two years to go, congratulations.

thrila · « **Reply #23 on:** November 16, 2007, 07:33:57 AM »

I can't blame Urchin, you are ranting like a fool, schlowy

Karnak · « **Reply #24 on:** November 16, 2007, 09:56:01 AM »

schlowy2,

You are treating everybody on this board like we are idiots that use a game as reference material.

None of us base our expectations of performance in reality on this, or any or game or combination of games.

But since you are so keen on pushing AW2 and AW3, I will tell you that flight model is utter fiction. That you use it as a reference does not speak well of your understanding of how to collect and evaluate performance data.

Almost all of us have quibbles with some unit performance in AH. None of us think it is perfect.

Murdr · « **Reply #25 on:** November 16, 2007, 10:28:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by schlowy2
Someone:
Post some of those 'prove all that' sites that can't be nay'ed about the 109's controls locked up sooo much sooner than the other planes?
Imma read wiki all about it tomorrow, didn't even see any mention when skimmed it.

Wiki is hardly a definative source for anything, it is in fact riddled with flaws an poor information. That said, why don't you read about compressibility while you're at it, learn how trim works, and also become familiar with the official 109 dive speed limitation.

Then you might want to consider that you are not the only person in the game that spent years in Air Warrior and/or Warbirds. That there are people here that have massive libraries of information regarding WWII fighters, not only in the form of published books, but also hard to find period documents. Those same people are not likely to jump in and provide research material for those who are to obnoxious, rude, and too lazy to do some research themselves before posting uninformed complaints here. Then you might want to consider that there are a number of fervent Luftwaffe enthusiast here who do not hesitate to speak up if they feel there is an issue with the games flight modeling. The fact that there is not a chorus of voices joining you speaks volumes to the fact that you are not informed enough on the subject to garner support.

schlowy2 · « **Reply #26 on:** November 16, 2007, 06:14:28 PM »

See Rule #5

Murdr · « **Reply #27 on:** November 16, 2007, 06:51:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by schlowy2
Murdr, all planes suffered from what you said "dive speed limitation." For you to state that its a 109 problem with no mention of the fact that its a problem for any airplane, only shows bias.

Here we go with the whole reading comprehension issue, and words in peoples mouth.

I said.

Quote

Originally posted by Murdr
...and also become familiar with the official 109 dive speed limitation.

BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FREAKING 109!!
Why would I reference irrelevent material?
Don't be so dense.

I try to hand you some search keywords on a silver platter, and this is the reply I get. Nice.

Kweassa · « **Reply #28 on:** November 16, 2007, 07:07:00 PM »

Quote

See Rule #5

*snicker*

'nuff said.

Dutchie · « **Reply #29 on:** November 16, 2007, 07:10:07 PM »

There's nothing wrong with the 109's, leave um as they are!

(I even got used to the thick bars, hehe)

Either adapt to its FM or pick another ride