Thought you couldnt do this anymore?

[Jekyll]

Flying and landing safely with only wing stubs?

I mean, do we REALLY need new planes before the existing FM's/DM's get fixed?

Film at 11    

Flew all the way from A43 to A1 in this condition.  Quite easy actually, so long as you manage your throttle to overcome yaw.

And yes Ripsnort, I know that the missing wingtips are a generic modelling of wing damage.

And I realise that the AH damage model is only a 'placeholder' until it gets revamped. (Hope it's bloody soon!)

But geez.. I musta missed all those WW2 pilot stories where they flew 30 miles back to base and landed successfully with no ailerons  

And whoever the rook spit was at A43 who nailed me at the top of my hammerhead .... YOU WERE ROBBED  

------------------
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Chapter 13, verse 11


[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 04-04-2001).]

[MANDOBLE]

Jekyll, agree totally with you.
Fine tunning of what we have is what, IMO, we need before any new features, planes, vehicles, maps, etc.

[Ripsnort]

I'd like to see them focus on the damage graphics display (as you mentioned) and the cockpits...both need a major upgrade.  The wings gone graphics shows far more damage than what has actually occured to the FM.

[MiG Eater]

Introduce turbulence into the weather model and people will have a much more difficult time flying with no airlerons.  Very rarely do I fly and find the air as rock steady as we see in AH.  This is especially true around cumulous clouds.  Flying through and a around them is a guaranteed thrill ride in pitch, roll and yaw.  I would never want to be caught in such conditions without ailerons.

MiG

[GRUNHERZ]

Its not just a poor repesentation of partial damage. If this was so ALL of the planes would be realatily easy to land with half a wing at varius times supposedly depending on severity of damage. As it is now only some of the planes are ever easy to fly with half a wing. F4U is ALWAYS easy to fly with one wing no matter what. Fw190 is almost as easy to fly with half a wing all of the time. Niki isnt bad either. 109s are almost impossible to fly with half a wing ALWAYS.

The AH DM does model partial damage, you can blow off all control surfaces and its visible, you can loose all three landing rear pieces and its visible.

[Ripsnort]

Grun, the damage model itself is dependant on the airframe, the graphic representation is just that, a graphic representation(and a poor one at that).  I would expect a damaged wing of a Corsair to fly better than a 109, since it historically could sustain more wing damage than a 109.

[GRUNHERZ]

Ripsnort I could understand that if there ever existed a variable level of damage in all of the planes- or more precisly if there was more or less degradation in control depending on supposed amount of damage.

However there isnt any, a half wing chog flies exactly the same every time its very very smooth and very nice.

Does this mean a plane always takes the same wing damage?

What im saying is that there is only one effect there is no accounting of variable damage, otherwise you would expect a plane would sometimes vary in loss of control and stability. But they dont they are always the same.



[This message has been edited by GRUNHERZ (edited 04-04-2001).]

[Ripsnort]

Ahh, I see, your talking about random catostrophic failures...ie, the same 5 hits of 20mm into a wing produces different aerodynamic results...I think software for games are quite a ways off from that, although if I could give you a tour of where I work, I could show you that model...

[Zigrat]

ripsnort i agree the corsair wing is stronger than 109 wing which is probably teh case (to remove the wingtip of corsair takes more bullets than remove wingtip of 109) i dont disagree with that


but the fact that (arbitrarily) some planes can fly away with 1/2 a wing and some cannot land with 1/2 wing (spitfire, 109) is bogus to me...

[Raubvogel]

Yeah, what Zig said.

------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[Blue Mako]

 

Originally posted by Zigrat:
but the fact that (arbitrarily) some planes can fly away with 1/2 a wing and some cannot land with 1/2 wing (spitfire, 109) is bogus to me...

All to do with the way HTC have modelled the amount of wing area lost when a wingtip falls off.  If you'll forgive me getting technical:  Wing lift coefficient and aileron control power determine whether you can fly balanced with the wingtip gone.

Jekyll:

There is no reason at all why you couldnt fly and land a plane with both wing tips gone.  All you need to do is fly fast enough to get enough lift from the wing and fuselage area left.  Rudder has a secondary effect of roll so that is no biggie.  This has even happened in real life.

The part where I think the damage model is slightly out is where a plane will go faster with wing parts missing.  This is unlikely as there would in RL be an increase in drag due to the aspect ratio of the wing being lower and tip effects being less than optimal, among other things of course...

[Mark Luper]

Actually I find the dammage modeling as it is quite amazing compared to the roundish hit bubble that was WB when I flew that one.

I am not disagreeing with anyone here just making an observation about something I realized had improved so much in the last couple of years.

I guess we all (I am including myself in this) always want more the more we get  . The state of the online sim is so far advanced from what we had been used to before and we've become accustomed to it and lo and behold we think it ought to be better.

There are a lot of things such as this I would like to see improved, but I guess I am having so much fun with what we have I don't really give it much thought.

I suppose if I got to the point I consistently had a positive k/d ratio I would start "seeing" more than I do now, but, as I have since I started online sims, I continue to struggle to keep up with all you guys that "seem" to be able to do so well so easily.

<S> to you all.

[Yello1]

Ahh THATS why when I blew the wing tip off that niki (and later that F6) he just kept on flying much to my chagrin (I ranout of ammo). I can tell you most of the planes here do not fly with a wingtip missing, the F4 N1k and F6 and 190 may be exceptions, but I don't fly em. The planes I do fly, which is most of the Allied other types, lose stability and crash without the wingtip.  I think if this is supposed to be lower level of wing damage than shown then a graphic for that should be made (holes in wing). If some planes could fly with wingtip gone Ok, though maybe I think it would be less of the wing gone than shown in this graphic? That amount seems pretty catastrophic? My one problem with this is if wingtip is supposed to be lower amount of damage where some planes can fly then why Why I ask does a B17 not have any ability to fly (or to get home and land anyway) with damaged vert stabilizer?  I have seen many photos of 17s with stablizers ruined, that got back to base. If a n1k can fly with a wingtip gone, then 17 should fly with vert stab gone. Ideally of course we will have graphics that show holes, half of wing tips and stabilizers damaged, and also graphics where the whole thing is gone and all with varying degrees of control degredation.  I vote for this as a priority as well, but not as high a priority as adding Dauntless, Halifax, B24, B25, B29 !!! And hey get that B36 too! hmm you can add fighters if you think it necessary I suupose too (my votes would be F4 Wildcat, Hurricane, Brewster Buffallo, Sturmovik oops not a fighter).