Author Topic: Rope-A-Dopes And Reality (Read 759 times)

funkedup · « **Reply #15 on:** May 24, 2002, 07:37:54 PM »

Geez Skurj, you better tell Bud Anderson! I'm sure he'll feel extra lucky to have survived.

Streak all I can say is get up from your computer and go to an airshow some time. Planes like a Spit LF 9 or Sea Fury have plenty of excess power to loop all day.

Wotan · « **Reply #16 on:** May 24, 2002, 08:12:58 PM »

you can still see the con in the sun in ah if you cant adjust your gamma or put your glasses on.

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #17 on:** May 24, 2002, 09:15:29 PM »

I dont think sun effect has been modeled into AH as strong as it is in real life.. At least I can't focus my eyes anywhere near the sun for more than half a second.

Tac · « **Reply #18 on:** May 24, 2002, 09:24:41 PM »

take your hormones frogboy and chill.

How did
"Rope a dope would be far more effective "

read to you as

"Well in "Real Life" " ?

Sun glare in AH only works if the plane is straight on top of the sun.. and even then its icon is highly visible. Ever played PACIFIC STRIKE? It had a nice sun glare effect, you couldnt see nothing but a yellow glow and the sun glare light effect if you looked in the direction of the sun. I liked that.

As far as the rangefinder goes, im convinced we'd get far more better gunnery gameplay if they didnt give range past d500.

"In fact, your comments about visual cues here remind me of your comments about "buff guns" being different and more powerful than fighter guns of the same caliber."

When my nose gunned P-38 is capable of killing a d1.8 con flying away from me with a few hits I'll believe that. I can do this in a buff, not in a fighter with the "same" 50 cals. But then again, all this does is piss off HT and I dont give a flying diddly about the buff guns anymore. And thus you dont see any more posts like that. Unless of course you want to bring them up for good ol times sake

Samm · « **Reply #19 on:** May 24, 2002, 09:32:23 PM »

planes in the sun do not have icons in AH

50 cal nose guns of buffs have the same range as 50 cals on fighters . Know why ? Becuase they're exactly the same . Basically your saying that you still don't understand why rearward firing guns have longer range ?!? Still !? You want your p38's guns to have the range of a b17's tail guns ? Fly it backwards .

Tac · « **Reply #20 on:** May 24, 2002, 09:42:16 PM »

for the half a instant the plane is completely under the sun samm. The moment a little piece of it goes outside the sun its icon pops out, big n' screaming. It would be very cool if the icon and plane were hidden if they were inside a circle area... say, if you take the sun's size and expand it 8X .. anything inside that circle would be blocked by a yellow/white streak of light. Then we might have some great bounces

Toad · « **Reply #21 on:** May 24, 2002, 10:51:09 PM »

"Frogboy"? That's your rebuttal? How creative and imaginative.

1. So we all agree sun glare IS modeled. Obviously not to some folks satisfaction, but it IS there.

2. Obviously Tac still does not accept/understand what HT told him.... repeatedly... about "buff guns" but at least he's figured out he's better off not asking/accusing again.

3. Now "icons off" is improved gameplay. What happened to the old desire for "realism with icons off"? Finally realize that you don't know what it should look like at 20k?

Thanks. A good update that made me laugh before bagging it for the night.

akak · « **Reply #22 on:** May 24, 2002, 11:46:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SKurj
in the probable furballs seen in ww2 i would imagine goin for the rope would be a risky maneuever and likely discouraged.

Not only is the con going slow but you are too.. in a multi bogie engagement...

SKurj

Rope-a-Dope was a very common tactic, it's pretty much a basic energy fighting maneuver. Corsair pilots used to use a right hand spiral climb to rope Japanese planes.

Ack-Ack

deSelys · « **Reply #23 on:** May 25, 2002, 02:33:17 AM »

Toad, soory to point it oout but you're sounding like a real fanboy here....

Although I don't agree with Tac on every point, the sunglare as it is modelled in AH isn't very convincing.

Sunglare in WB was much more effective and realistic-looking.

As you said it, high altitude air is much clearer: sun is hence much brighter too.

Montezuma · « **Reply #24 on:** May 25, 2002, 02:38:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SKurj
in the probable furballs seen in ww2 i would imagine goin for the rope would be a risky maneuever and likely discouraged.
Not only is the con going slow but you are too.. in a multi bogie engagement...
SKurj

There's a good example of a failed rope in 'Aces Against Japan' where a zero piloted by an ace tried the rope against a P-39s but got wacked. The P-39 had just dove into the furball and the zeke under-estimated his speed. Sound familiar?

pbirmingham · « **Reply #25 on:** May 25, 2002, 02:42:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by deSelys
Toad, soory to point it oout but you're sounding like a real fanboy here....

Although I don't agree with Tac on every point, the sunglare as it is modelled in AH isn't very convincing.

Sunglare in WB was much more effective and realistic-looking.

As you said it, high altitude air is much clearer: sun is hence much brighter too.

Yes, but the sunlight is scattered less, which means that you have to be looking even more directly at it to be blinded, as fewer of the rays will be coming from somewhere other than directly from the Sun, 93 million miles away.

Plus, we've all read in Shaw how Boyington used to block out the sun with his pinky while scanning the sky. This won't work for a close con while you're maneuvering, true, but in such a case, it won't be in the sun long, either.

Citabria · « **Reply #26 on:** May 25, 2002, 03:15:20 AM »

toad goes to work and programs an airborne computer all day and has no idea what real flying is

Vector · « **Reply #27 on:** May 25, 2002, 03:36:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by streakeagle
That would be true if there was no such thing as lift induced drag or gravity
Unfortunately, WWII aircraft do not have the power to weight ratio to make a big low-g circle.

S!
This been discussed before and if my memory reserves it was Lephturn, who pointed out an article about the biplane that made almost 200(?) consecutive loops before he stopped it. This was way before WWII. Yes it was biplane, but considering WWII fighters having way better power/weight ratio, why shouldn't they be able to do them?

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #28 on:** May 25, 2002, 04:42:27 AM »

Vector the biplanes were called 'kite's for a reason

Toad · « **Reply #29 on:** May 25, 2002, 08:30:30 AM »

deselys, I flew WB too. And AW DOS on Genie, WW2OL and most every box flying game that has come out since about 1989. I'm aware of what other games offer.

Is sunglare in AH perfectly realistic? No. And unlike another poster here, I have actually chased other aircraft around the sky from the deck up to about 35,000 feet. So, I have a reasonable idea of "sun glare". Sunglare depends on a lot of things like time of day, sky condition, sight angle and more. I suspect it would be very, very difficult to actually program ALL of this stuff in an entirely "realistic" way. Lots of games have tried. None have gotten it "right", IMO.

However, to flatly state "if AH modelled sun glare" implies that it isn't modeled at all. Which, of course, is blatantly incorrect. It's almost as blatantly incorrect as saying something like "buffs have turbolasers, fighters only have .50 cals or short range cannons at best".

Now it is true that this particular sun glare comment may have caught me at a weak moment when I was susceptible wasting my time answering the urge to correct absurd statements.

Nonetheless, sunglare is modeled. To say it is not is merely another baseless accusation slung at HTC.

If it isn't modeled the way you wish, make a constructive suggestion. Provide some examples. There's pictures of aircraft in the sun all over the net.

But don't sling out "AH doesn't model sun glare" because that simply isn't true.