« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Something more realistic, less arcade.  (Read 4630 times)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Re: Something more realistic, less arcade.
« Reply #90 on: November 23, 2011, 03:10:40 PM »
The only way any aircraft loses a wing or tail to a single hit from a Hispano Mk II is if it had already taken damage there.  Period.

The Hispano Mk II does not, even at point blank range, do enough damage points to exceed the damage hit points of any aircraft that I know of in AH.

If you claim otherwise you are lying.
Logged
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Something more realistic, less arcade.
« Reply #91 on: November 23, 2011, 04:27:55 PM »
He might mean when you get the lucky golden bb, and get a pilot kill with a single round, which can cause (or used to cause, at any rate) the plane to explode.
Logged
Quote from: Arlo on April 28, 2014, 06:25:38 PM
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Re: Something more realistic, less arcade.
« Reply #92 on: November 23, 2011, 04:52:44 PM »
Quote from: Tank-Ace on November 23, 2011, 04:27:55 PM
He might mean when you get the lucky golden bb, and get a pilot kill with a single round, which can cause (or used to cause, at any rate) the plane to explode.
No, he is talking about taking wings and tails off with a single 20mm hit.  Any gun, even a .303 can one shot the pilot if lucky.
Logged
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Melvin

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2797
Re: Something more realistic, less arcade.
« Reply #93 on: November 23, 2011, 05:38:22 PM »
Hey guys, how about we try to engage the Developer in a conversation about the awful modelling that allows planes to pull incredible moves without any adverse effect on the pilot.

Or we could just try to prove each other wrong and get absolutely nowhere.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 05:45:58 PM by Melvin »
Logged
See Rule #4

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: Something more realistic, less arcade.
« Reply #94 on: November 23, 2011, 05:47:46 PM »
the G modelling seems ok to me but some people seem to think your heads going to explode if you pull -2G for 2 seconds.

do you know long a trained fighter pilot can withstand sustained 3G, 6G, 9G, 12G, 15G etc? and exactly how many Gs and for exactly how long you're pulling them during a fight? someone posted the numbers here, search for them you'll be surprised.
Logged
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline THRASH99

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 268
Re: Something more realistic, less arcade.
« Reply #95 on: November 23, 2011, 06:04:20 PM »
Quote from: Ack-Ack on November 23, 2011, 02:09:18 PM
I've flown every single plane in this game extensively and can fly them far better than you will ever be able to in this game. 
Sounds like you have no social life... :lol
Logged

Jokers Jokers
"CAN'T TALK NOW.....GOTTA SHOOT!" - Dan Zoernig
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - 56th FG

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Something more realistic, less arcade.
« Reply #96 on: November 23, 2011, 06:16:12 PM »
Quote from: THRASH99 on November 23, 2011, 06:04:20 PM
Sounds like you have no social life... :lol

Says the guy that felt the need to do some research because he heard something quite clearly false on the history channel.
Logged
Quote from: Arlo on April 28, 2014, 06:25:38 PM
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Melvin

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2797
Re: Something more realistic, less arcade.
« Reply #97 on: November 23, 2011, 06:25:29 PM »
Quote from: RTHolmes on November 23, 2011, 05:47:46 PM
the G modelling seems ok to me but some people seem to think your heads going to explode if you pull -2G for 2 seconds.

do you know long a trained fighter pilot can withstand sustained 3G, 6G, 9G, 12G, 15G etc? and exactly how many Gs and for exactly how long you're pulling them during a fight? someone posted the numbers here, search for them you'll be surprised.

O.K. I just went to the DA for a little testing of my own.

I grabbed a Spit16 and headed into a shallow dive. I yanked back on the stick and instantly pegged the accelerometer. This set me at +9+ G's.

I then immediately pushed forward on the stick. This pegged the gauge at -4+ G's.

What I'm saying is that there was an instantaneous swing of more than 15 G's (from + to - ). There was no ill effects on either pilot or aircraft.

I find this a bit hard to believe. Of course I could be wrong.


EDIT: WHOA! Crappy math alert!!! I meant to say the swing was 13 G's not 15. I can see my argument being torn to shreds rapidly.  :lol
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 06:29:19 PM by Melvin »
Logged
See Rule #4

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Something more realistic, less arcade.
« Reply #98 on: November 23, 2011, 06:34:46 PM »
Quote from: Melvin on November 23, 2011, 06:25:29 PM

What I'm saying is that there was an instantaneous swing of more than 15 G's (from + to - ). There was no ill effects on either pilot or aircraft.


hitech stated a few years ago that the lack of adverse effects on the pilot due to extreme maneuvering is in place for game play reasons, that's why we don't suffer from negative effects from G and negative Gs other than black/red outs.

ack-ack
Logged
"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 Melvin

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2797
Re: Something more realistic, less arcade.
« Reply #99 on: November 23, 2011, 06:38:16 PM »
Quote from: Ack-Ack on November 23, 2011, 06:34:46 PM
hitech stated a few years ago that the lack of adverse effects on the pilot due to extreme maneuvering is in place for game play reasons, that's why we don't suffer from negative effects from G and negative Gs other than black/red outs.

ack-ack

So in essence we're just going to have to live with the "flopping fish" Spitfires, no matter how gamey and unrealistic it is?

If that's the official word I can accept it. That doesn't mean I have to like it.
Logged
See Rule #4

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Something more realistic, less arcade.
« Reply #100 on: November 23, 2011, 06:45:26 PM »
Quote from: Melvin on November 23, 2011, 06:38:16 PM
So in essence we're just going to have to live with the "flopping fish" Spitfires, no matter how gamey and unrealistic it is?

Yep, just like we have to live with the coddling auto-retracting flaps.


ack-ack
Logged
"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 RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: Something more realistic, less arcade.
« Reply #101 on: November 23, 2011, 06:55:30 PM »
Quote from: Melvin on November 23, 2011, 06:25:29 PM
O.K. I just went to the DA for a little testing of my own.

etc...

and you're comparing your results to ... what? :headscratch:
Logged
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline Melvin

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2797
Re: Something more realistic, less arcade.
« Reply #102 on: November 23, 2011, 07:10:14 PM »
Quote from: Ack-Ack on November 23, 2011, 06:45:26 PM
Yep, just like we have to live with the coddling auto-retracting flaps.


ack-ack

Ohh, I hate those too.

Quote from: RTHolmes on November 23, 2011, 06:55:30 PM
and you're comparing your results to ... what? :headscratch:

I was just wondering A) How great is the swing in G's that can occur and B) How quickly can someone go from Full positive G's to full negative G's.

What I found was a swing of ~13 G's almost instantaneously. In my uneducated opinion, this could not only be harmful to the pilot but to the airframe as well.

I envision pilots having their heads bounced off of the canopy and other in-cockpit objects.

It's entirely possible that real life pilots have VERY strong necks though.  :lol
Logged
See Rule #4

Offline THRASH99

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 268
Re: Something more realistic, less arcade.
« Reply #103 on: November 24, 2011, 02:04:30 AM »
Quote from: Tank-Ace on November 23, 2011, 06:16:12 PM
he heard something quite clearly false on the history channel.
  Says the guy who can't learn to read....Since when did I ever say I got my research off the history channel?
« Last Edit: November 24, 2011, 02:07:24 AM by THRASH99 »
Logged

Jokers Jokers
"CAN'T TALK NOW.....GOTTA SHOOT!" - Dan Zoernig
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - 56th FG

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: Something more realistic, less arcade.
« Reply #104 on: November 24, 2011, 02:24:50 AM »
centrifuge data (flying limits are a little higher)



http://aeromedical.org/Articles/g-loc.html

its also worth noting that a couple of AHers who have flown and taught modern fighter jets for a living think the G-LOC modelling is about right ...
« Last Edit: November 24, 2011, 02:26:22 AM by RTHolmes »
Logged
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10   Go Up
« previous next »