Author Topic: hm....  (Read 2268 times)

Offline WxMan

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
      • Arabian Knights
Re: hm....
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2009, 12:54:43 PM »
Having directly opposing 50 knot winds aloft in 4-6k layers is totally unrealistic. The shear was horrific. As I posted over a year ago to be realistic, the wind direction should change gradually in 20 to 30 degree increments per layer, not to exceed 200 degrees over a 30k depth. The speed should increase between 10 to 30 knots between each layer until you hit a "jet stream" then they should decrease in altitude again above that layer. This would have provided the "gusts" you were looking for.

In past FSO's all wind levels and directions were posted with the initial write up or at least with the objectives.


Finally, perhaps I missed it, but no where did I see that the Allies had air spawns. This would have been nice to know.

AKWxMan
Arabian Knights

"The money you payed earns you nothing. You paid for many hours of entertainment you received, and nothing more." - HiTech

Offline branch37

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1831
      • VF-17 Jolly Rogers
Re: hm....
« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2009, 01:02:45 PM »
I noticed that when flying with or against the wind (north or south) it wasnt much of a problem.  However, when flying east or west i hit a wind layer and it threw my 190D off as much as 45 degrees.  I almost stalled a couple of times while i was turning and hit the wind. :O

CMDR Branch37
VF-17 Jolly Rogers  C.O.

Offline nikomon

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 127
Re: hm....
« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2009, 01:08:06 PM »
 I'll give all of my thousands bomber perkies and 7 sheep for the  ta-152 to be added for frame 2.
"INTEGRITY is doing the right thing when no one else is watching."
Flying Since:Tour 87 4/2007
RT KOTH CHAMPION 2009-2010

Offline 68Wooley

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 931
Re: hm....
« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2009, 01:10:53 PM »
I'm assuming we're talking about the raid on A31?

The Buffs were at 20K, it was 9 Tempests and 6 P51's. But yes - the Allied fighters do seem to out perform the Axis birds at that alt - particularly the Tempests. Or maybe that was just the Muppits driving them ( :salute to them BTW )

For the record, the Buffs did OK, but not great on their drop, primarilly because of the cloud cover which was all the way more or less to the deck at the target. The base was hit again later by the P51's. Prior to that second raid, most of the hangers were soft but still standing.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2009, 01:13:42 PM by 68Wooley »

Offline 68Wooley

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 931
Re: hm....
« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2009, 01:12:52 PM »
Double post - doh

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: hm....
« Reply #20 on: December 05, 2009, 01:19:12 PM »
The Buffs were at 20K, it was 9 Tempests and 6 P51's. But yes - the Allied fighters do seem to out perform the Axis birds at that alt - particularly the Tempests. Or maybe that was just the Muppits driving them ( :salute to them BTW )

Did you see the chart I posted?  The Tempest is disadvantaged at high altitude.  Its vaunted main arena reputation is only due to the low altitude of the fights we have there.

And here it is against the 51D:
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline DMBEAR

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1044
      • JG2 Richtofen
Re: hm....
« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2009, 01:20:43 PM »

Finally, perhaps I missed it, but no where did I see that the Allies had air spawns. This would have been nice to know.


As the Cic I assumed that all CO's would have read the Axis objectives.  It states on page 2 and page 4 that the Allies have airstarts and what bases they may use.

On the map I sent out there is also a key that shows airstart bases.  

Offline WxMan

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
      • Arabian Knights
Re: hm....
« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2009, 04:25:22 PM »
My apologies, I missed that information in the orders and that information was cut off when I printed the map.
AKWxMan
Arabian Knights

"The money you payed earns you nothing. You paid for many hours of entertainment you received, and nothing more." - HiTech

Offline daddog

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15082
      • http://www.332nd.org
Re: hm....
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2009, 04:31:21 PM »
As for the winds...
Quote
Having directly opposing 50 knot winds aloft in 4-6k layers is totally unrealistic. The shear was horrific. As I posted over a year ago to be realistic, the wind direction should change gradually in 20 to 30 degree increments per layer, not to exceed 200 degrees over a 30k depth. The speed should increase between 10 to 30 knots between each layer until you hit a "jet stream" then they should decrease in altitude again above that layer. This would have provided the "gusts" you were looking for.
IMHO those settings we have used before do not give a realistic ‘gusty strong wind’ feeling. With a few degrees change between layers it does nothing to represent strong gusts. Winds in AH are steady and completely consistent.

Many have experienced strong turbulence in aircraft. That is what I am trying to represent. Your right, the settings are unrealistic for real winds, but I am not aiming for realistic settings. I am aiming for a realistic feeling.
Noses in the wind since 1997
332nd Flying Mongrels
daddog
Knowing for Sure

Offline Viper61

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 585
Re: hm....
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2009, 04:33:37 PM »
No bombers hit Eisenach.  Roughly 30 - 35 P-51 with ords were sent.  Im not sure of how many made it to target.

Offline WxMan

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
      • Arabian Knights
Re: hm....
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2009, 05:51:10 AM »
As for the winds... IMHO those settings we have used before do not give a realistic ‘gusty strong wind’ feeling. With a few degrees change between layers it does nothing to represent strong gusts. Winds in AH are steady and completely consistent.

Many have experienced strong turbulence in aircraft. That is what I am trying to represent. Your right, the settings are unrealistic for real winds, but I am not aiming for realistic settings. I am aiming for a realistic feeling.


If you want turbulence then put a 20 knot rise or fall in the winds in alternate layers, the settings allow for that.
AKWxMan
Arabian Knights

"The money you payed earns you nothing. You paid for many hours of entertainment you received, and nothing more." - HiTech

Offline haasehole

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
      • http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/The13thMidwestPilotGroup/
Re: hm....
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2009, 08:11:23 AM »
 the wind hit us (in tyhpoons) and it seemed realistic to me (I'm just a tard thoo  :D ) and 190's and 109's seemed well above our 26k flight  :salute
~GELU~CRUOR~IUGUOLO~o2b1ace~
             13 Midwest Pilot Group
                  WD40 - F.S.O.

Offline Agent360

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 780
      • http://troywardphotography.com
Re: hm....
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2009, 09:29:14 PM »
The attack on A31 by the Allies was planed quite well. The reason you guys got jumped is the p51's came in ahead of the buffs to break your attack up. The Tempests (Muppets flying) held back behind the formation and we nosed in from about 23k. We tried to go over 25k but the Tempest couldn't get through it without loosing control. We held our attack unitl the k4's made there attack runs. We just caught you guys at the right moment.

The buffs linked up with fighter cover as planned and we then planed out exactly how we were going to handle the bad guys.

I will have to say it was the most coordinated fighter escort I have ever been involved in in FSO.

I think it was more coordination and tactics than anything else.

 :salute

Offline DMBEAR

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1044
      • JG2 Richtofen
Re: hm....
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2009, 10:31:43 PM »
I expected far more bombers to attack us.   :headscratch:  Especially in the North close to the Northern airstarts.

On the orders I put out, I advised planes to use their advantages and for 109's to engage with fighters while 190s concentrated on buffs.  I'm sure thats why many 190's kept their alt at the sight of fighters.  They were looking for the bombers as I had directed.

 :salute Viper61.  You made the right moves by throwing minimal buffs and concentrating on the South.  I guessed wrong on both of the main decisions you had.
 

Offline curry1

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2321
Re: hm....
« Reply #29 on: December 08, 2009, 04:40:42 PM »
I expected far more bombers to attack us.   :headscratch:  Especially in the North close to the Northern airstarts.
On the orders I put out, I advised planes to use their advantages and for 109's to engage with fighters while 190s concentrated on buffs.  I'm sure thats why many 190's kept their alt at the sight of fighters.  They were looking for the bombers as I had directed.
 :salute Viper61.  You made the right moves by throwing minimal buffs and concentrating on the South.  I guessed wrong on both of the main decisions you had.
yep we stayed high in our 190s as 30-35 mustangs flew past us we realized a little too late that those mustangs were heavy as Eisenach started taking hits
Curry1-Since Tour 101