Engines runing full blast

[Stiglr]

jdbecks wrote:

Honestly, why would it be so good to have different airplanes reading in different units of measure..other than to cause confusion.  Because if you done that, you would also have to change your units of weight in the EB6, gun convergence distances, aircraft distances etc...

1) Because there WERE two units of measure systems in use in WWII aircraft. That's just FACT.
2) Your units of measure in the code don't change an iota, it's all in how they're PRESENTED to the player. As an example, the code in Targetware references metric, imperial and english ... oh, yes, and KNOTS, too, for the Navy pukes. The calculations in the code are most often metric behind the scenes. But, a US gauge still shows either knots or feet/gallons/etc. on the respective gauges. Simply because you just do basic math to tell a needle how far to rotate or move on a piece of 3D art to read the proper units.

This really comes down to how much detail you're willing to put into production. Yes, it does take a bit of effort to create the artwork for proper gauges... but a person who prefers a SIM sees value in it. A gamer, probably, does not.

[hitech]

Stiglr: I did not threaten you , I very simply told you the rules that are listed at the top of every forum.

'murrican mindset, don't you think your Euro flyers might be much more used to km/h, or km alt than feet and inches

Anyone else see the rule breaking in this post.

Stiglr you have used derogatory term in your reference to me as an American.  You did previously also. Clean it up or be gone. I posted in a respectful way to you, if you are not willing to do the same.

For one thing, you're discrediting the ability of people to be able to think. Expressing 10,000 feet as about 3km is describing the same distance. Why this "need" to have to use same units? I'm extremely math challenged IRL, and yet I can keep them straight in my head, after flying virtually for several years.

Unlike you I am extremely not math challenged. Very few people can keep up with me in quick approximate math in your head, I also have my BS in math. I have also flown aerobatics in yaks in Ukraine using metric gauges. First loop I did I estimated speed conversion wrong and stalled before loop completion. Evey manaver entry I had to think 3 times to be sure my minimum altitude was correct Even though it can be done, anyone who has done it knows it is a pain in the попа. So like normal you speak from what you think is true while those of us have done it for real know what is true.

HiTech

[Baumer]

I am going to respond one last time about engine reliability, and after this post, I will NEVER again respond in a discussion about it, on this board.

I agree with the uber reliability folks on the following points;

• A pilot (in real life) will do what ever it takes to get back, regardless of some numbers in a book or on a placard on the instrument panel
• There are many anecdotal stories of engines pushed well past their design limits, for extraordinary times and distances
• That during World War 2 most combat aircraft (of all country's) were pushed well past the manufacture's recommendations

But to read over and over that these engines were faultless and or could never fail in one flight, is completely baseless and inaccurate. I suggest that many of you really go look at the history much more closely. I suggest you start with a book titled Sigh for a Merlin by Alex Henshaw from Arrow Books. He was a factory test pilot for Supermarine and tested Spitfires through out the war. He does a very good job explaining what it was like testing all these aircraft and many of the issues they faced.

But as a point if you look to the last page (pg 205) he provides "Summary of flying from Castle Bromwich Works from June 1940 to January 1946"

He states that;
"During this period 11,694 Spitfire aircraft and 305 Lancaster bombers were produced at Castle Bromwich and the dispersal factories of Cosford and Desford. In the course of the production and performance trials completed on these aircraft, 8210 hours were flown on Spitfire aircraft and 344 hours on Lancasters, involving 900 Lancaster test flights and 33,918 for Spitfires. During five years of flying, 25 pilots were engaged for six months or longer, the majority of these comprising RAF officers who had completed various tours of active service. 127 forced landings were made, largely due to engine failures of one sort or another. Out of this number, in spite of often appalling weather and the critical nature f the failure, 76 aircraft were landed with the wheels down and no further damage."

These are his words, not mine and they relate to testing aircraft before they were delivered to the RAF or other armed forces. And just to be clear this is not about testing new prototype Spitfires but standard production models.

I strongly suggest reading the book, and appreciate the tremendous technological advancements that were made in manufacturing during this time. Prior to WW2 Aircraft safety and reliability ranged from mediocre to abysmal, the amazing growth of aviation after the war is due to the huge strides in reliability that were achieved during this time. But to keep perpetuating the notion that reliability was not a daily concern of the pilots and crews, dose a disservice to their sacrifice, both in the air in battle, and in the factory's making things better.

And with that I am done with this topic,

<S>

[jdbecks]

jdbecks wrote:
1) Because there WERE two units of measure systems in use in WWII aircraft. That's just FACT.
2) Your units of measure in the code don't change an iota, it's all in how they're PRESENTED to the player. As an example, the code in Targetware references metric, imperial and english ... oh, yes, and KNOTS, too, for the Navy pukes. The calculations in the code are most often metric behind the scenes. But, a US gauge still shows either knots or feet/gallons/etc. on the respective gauges. Simply because you just do basic math to tell a needle how far to rotate or move on a piece of 3D art to read the proper units.

This really comes down to how much detail you're willing to put into production. Yes, it does take a bit of effort to create the artwork for proper gauges... but a person who prefers a SIM sees value in it. A gamer, probably, does not.

I was not disputing there are different units of measurement, just because WW2 aircrafts used different units of measure, deos not mean it would be good for the game. It would not improve immersion to the game when you are flying a spitfire and winging up with a 109 etc.

Which also draws onto my next point, this is a game, not a simulator, this has also been stated by HTC.

[hitech]

jdbecks wrote:
1) Because there WERE two units of measure systems in use in WWII aircraft. That's just FACT.
2) Your units of measure in the code don't change an iota, it's all in how they're PRESENTED to the player. As an example, the code in Targetware references metric, imperial and english ... oh, yes, and KNOTS, too, for the Navy pukes. The calculations in the code are most often metric behind the scenes. But, a US gauge still shows either knots or feet/gallons/etc. on the respective gauges. Simply because you just do basic math to tell a needle how far to rotate or move on a piece of 3D art to read the proper units.

This really comes down to how much detail you're willing to put into production. Yes, it does take a bit of effort to create the artwork for proper gauges... but a person who prefers a SIM sees value in it. A gamer, probably, does not.

Exactly how big is the player base in TW? And what is the max they have ever had online at one time? And how much money have they made with there game? How important is it to TW to please the biggest audience because they like to eat every night?

And like always you ignore the important points and just keep on spouting your own view point.

HiTech

[Stiglr]

Masherbrum writes:

My nationality has ZERO bearing on my gameplay, etc.   For you to even mention nationalities at all is selfish at best.

It shows how little you understand what I wrote. I'm not saying that being American is a bad thing. I'm American and proud of it. But, I'm also proud to say that I do have a bit of a world view, too, and the two are not mutually-exclusive as the Rush Limbaugh/Glen Becks of the world might have you believe.

I mention the "American viewpoint" because that's what Dale expressed to me as his reason for not having accurate gauges in the aircraft pits. Either that or the so-called "confusion" explanation are both paper-thin.

@ Dale: 'murrian is derogatory? A slur? Really? According to exactly whom? If you can show that it is, I'll amend every post I've used the term in to read "American".

[Stiglr]

Exactly how big is the player base in TW? And what is the max they have ever had online at one time? And how much money have they made with there game? How important is it to TW to please the biggest audience because they like to eat every night?

And like always you ignore the important points and just keep on spouting your own view point.

HiTech

1) The player base. It's small. But it's been a lot larger in the past, when Mk9 actually supported the product and actually communicated with its audience. The fact that they don't is a big factor in its small appeal. But I'll tell you this: the people who still ARE there, are there because they see value in a better sim. And the fact that we can create something, something of BETTER quality (in terms of a sim, definitely not as a game or popular, money-making venture, where you beat us all day long) than you and your paid team can produce while making $0 at it... I think that says something about what WE value.
2) Don't know the max online figure, as I don't run the metaserver or keep stats. But, I'm pretty sure it can reliably host hundreds, just like WB or AH can. It doesn't have the same limitations as say, IL-2 run over HyperLobby.
3) Don't know about money either, as I'm not in the "collections" end of it. But we hear loud and clear that you certainly ARE. Yeah, I know it's your business to make money, but I happen to think you could draw a line between "a good sim" and a "popular money making venture" in a different place. "Because the customer whines to get it their way, and will stamp their feet, take their ball and go home" isn't as good a reason to model (or not to model) something as historical fact.
4) Targetware certainly doesn't aim to please the biggest audience: simply because the "biggest audience" (and one that dwarfs AH's by a quantum leap) would be your Nintendo/Wii playing console folks who are even a step below AH in discerning anything like quality.

At the end of the day, the one FACT that puts this whole discussion to bed is the admission that "AH is just a game". Doesn't aspire to anything more accurate or of higher historical or simulation value than that.

That was my biggest mistake, assuming that some people here might actually see value in a highly accurate survey sim. I stand corrected. I can now be more certain that it wouldn't be worth my while to pay for a monthly subscription at AH.

[Stiglr]

jdbecks wrote:

It would not improve immersion to the game when you are flying a spitfire and winging up with a 109 etc.

 

Hooo boy, where do I start with THAT one?

For one, accuracy in the cockpit can't do anything but INCREASE immersion. Have you ever looked into the cockpit of a REAL aircraft in a museum and had a deja vu experience because that's almost exactly how it looks in the sim you play? If you fly AH, probably not. I've had the pleasure of that experience, because in my sim, most of the aircraft ARE faithfully recreated... and I make sure to put that kind of detail in any cockpit I produce myself.

For two, how much "immersion" is there in the unheard of scenario of a "Spitfire winging up with a 109"???? That only happens in a silly arena game, it wouldn't happen in a SIM.

And finally, for three, I could "wing with" either of those planes and keep the units straight in my head. Only because I've done so for quite some time. It's really not that hard... 

[Stiglr]

Baumer wrote:

I agree with the uber reliability folks on the following points;

    * A pilot (in real life) will do what ever it takes to get back, regardless of some numbers in a book or on a placard on the instrument panel
    * There are many anecdotal stories of engines pushed well past their design limits, for extraordinary times and distances
    * That during World War 2 most combat aircraft (of all country's) were pushed well past the manufacture's recommendations

I'm with you 100% on that. Still...

1) Of course anyone will do whatever it takes to survive... but that doesn't mean your aircraft will cooperate, does it?
2) Some people are forgetting that my hypothesis on engine management agrees with their idea of "balls to the wall, and beyond" handling of engines during combat. It's the expectation that you can do that for the other 50 minutes out of the 1-hour sortie (in AH) that's the problem. Most of the "management" happens OUTSIDE of combat, so that you CAN go full out during those few seconds of terror. And it's a factor as well, that when you start combat, you might not do so from a standpoint of having good fighting trim.

Hope you won't make good on your threat not to EVER post again on the subject. It's a sign of a lack of conviction in your post to make an edict like that, and claim to have the "last word" when you have nothing of the sort.

[fudgums]

because in my sim,

Something fishy  

[hitech]

Stiglr you are correct AH is a game, but so is every other piece of software you listed. You just like to fool yourself into thinking they are not a game because they are YOUR favorite. The sim/game argument is truly idiotic. Simulators are not an end result, they are a tool to used for some other goal, such as training (many different task in training) to testing a design before going to real production , to teach the mechanics of aerodynamics and also to compete against other people in a game simply to have fun. Even in a game there are different choices made to simulate different things, you are trying to say that trying to reproduce the gauges of an airplane is an important part of simulation. Well if your goal was to teach someone to fly a real version of that plane, and that was the only plane they needed to learn, then yes it is important. It also becomes important to place each gauge where the real one is, and have multiple screens so the field of view and perphial vision match the real plane, also there is no way you would want to have a key board because you need switches so that you know where they are when you are in flight.  Oh btw you would also force each person to stay on the ground idealing for 15 mins on most days to warm up the engine oil.

But if your goal is to give a person the feel of flying that plane, and being able to quickly switch from 1 plane to another then putting in gauges like the original plane had is just plane stupid. It is equivalent to saying a game sucks because every person is not flying with an exact replication made of real switches of the cockpit and a replication of all switches that also must not work on occasion.

And the reality is that when it comes to performance and flight dynamics AH beets every product on the market. Go do some climb rate/turn rates/speed test/fuel burn rates at all altitudes ,rpm & manifold pressure settings and then compare them to real world charts. See how we stack up vs all the others "SIMS" you speak of. You will very quickly find the others only have the illusion of realism like pushing a key on a key board to open a cowl flap. You may think that is fun, but most people do not. Puting the plane on edge and seat of the pance flight is what AH excels at.

HiTech

[Stiglr]

Dale writes:

Well if your goal was to teach someone to fly a real version of that plane, and that was the only plane they needed to learn, then yes it is important. It also becomes important to place each gauge where the real one is, and have multiple screens so the field of view and perphial vision match the real plane, also there is no way you would want to have a key board because you need switches so that you know where they are when you are in flight.  

What's your point? In Targetware, in most planes, each gauge IS where the real one is, and it LOOKS like the real one. The peripheral vision is remarkably similar to the real thing (we have a distinct lack of the Linda Blair view that you've kept popular). The various switches and levers are animated to move when you type the command or whatever it is you do to invoke the control. It ends up being about the same "effort" to do so in game as a "checked out" pilot would expend to physically manipulate the button in the real pit. You can "look at the control" and it will likely give you the right information. As I've said before, it's not the EFFORT of manipulating a switch so much as the consequences of remembering or forgetting to do the task.

Is it "100% accurate"? Of course not. And we all know the same old saws about "you don't really die, and you don't really feel Gs, pain and cold"... But saying that the choice is only between "ignoring FACTS and REALITIES because you think they're 'no fun' " and making it "100% ironclad" is a pretty naive view. You CAN have a detailed sim, and a historically relevant teaching tool, and involving gameplay, and it CAN be fun, too. All in one package.

Then Dale writes:

And the reality is that when it comes to performance and flight dynamics AH beets every product on the market. Go do some climb rate/turn rates/speed test/fuel burn rates at all altitudes ,rpm & manifold pressure settings and then compare them to real world charts.

How is accurate fuel burn possible with 2/3 horizontal scale maps and 100% scale vertical altitudes? And how would you test that, in say, a Me109 when the manifold pressures are expressed in atmospheres? And how do you explain the laser gunnery model which lets you be highly accurate at 600+ yards while pulling Gs (this seen from a YouTube video posted just today)?

[hitech]

How is accurate fuel burn possible with 2/3 horizontal scale maps and 100% scale vertical altitudes? And how would you test that, in say, a Me109 when the manifold pressures are expressed in atmospheres? And how do you explain the laser gunnery model which lets you be highly accurate at 600+ yards while pulling Gs (this seen from a YouTube video posted just today)?

Your the one who can convert units in your head so it should be easy for you. Since you do it all the time when switch planes.

Go test them, get the books, chart the speeds, test the dispersion patterns, test the gun ranges, test the drop of each bullet. As I said our goal is to duplicate flight dynamics.

And your switches are not real in any way shape or form, can you reach out and grab the switch and raise it? If not how can you call your game a sim. You should have to buy a real panel, not a simple computer screen to call that simple "GAME" a sim.

Linda BLAIR How many times have you been pulling 6 g's looking around in an air plane, do you have a clue how much you can see, and how easy it is to track a real plane once engaged vs how difficult it is in a game with a hat switch and computer screen.  I have many hours in real planes dog fighting,I have no idea how much time I have spent over 4 g's but it is a lot. Turning my head to see directly behind me. Once again you wish to believe what you think but have never experienced.

I am now done disusing with you , because you are becoming a moving target. Every time you are put in a corner and shown to be incorrect you choose a new topic to throw some more stones. Then simply make stuff up because your arguments do not stand up to any form of logic. And what is truly amazing you choose to criticize a game I doubt you have spent more than 2 hours in your life playing.

HiTech


HiTech

[StokesAk]

I give this thread 2 more pages.

[Saxman]

I'm surprised we HAVEN'T gotten to this yet: