Author Topic: Rope-A-Dopes And Reality (Read 790 times)

oboe · « **Reply #30 on:** May 25, 2002, 08:34:17 AM »

So anyway, back to the Rope-a-Dope and Clarence "Bud" Anderson:

Here's one of the most exciting air combat stories I've read, from Bud's book, "To Fly and Fight". My impression is that the fight described here contains two Rope-a-Dopes, one successful, and the other not, with disastrous implications for the pilot...

"He Was Someone Who Was Trying to Kill Me, Is All"

Would you guys agree?

Toad · « **Reply #31 on:** May 25, 2002, 08:39:06 AM »

Of course, I'm not always at work Cit.

I'm flying lead with my Dad in the back seat. My brother is flying wing. The photo plane was a T-6. We got on the cover of Trade-a-Plane with a shot taken that day over the Golden Gate.

We were tucked in real tight, maybe 3 foot wingtip clearance and everything went well until.......

we turned and put the sun behind the leader, the T-6. Then we totally lost sight of him and both my brother and myself crashed into the T-6 and everyone was killed. Because you know you cant' see at all when the sun is behind another plane.

http://www.geocities.com/kcghostsquadron/CAF-Planes/Twin-PTs.jpg

After we were all reborn and grew up and learned to fly again, my brother rebuilt this BT-13. I've got some time in it too. Unfortunately, it has no computers so I just sit in the seat on the ground and go "vroooom, vrooomm... rat-a-tat-tat".

http://www.geocities.com/kcghostsquadron/CAF-Planes/BT13-501-1.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/kcghostsquadron/CAF-Planes/BT13-501-2.jpg

This airplane has me pretty puzzled though. It seems to be able to do more consecutive loops than I want to do. It's kinda like the energizer bunny... if you hit your entry speed and altitude when you exit the loop (fly a good loop), danged if it won't go right up and do another one. What's up with that, anyway?

Sorry, I forgot geocities won't let you display directly. You'll have to click the link to see the pictures.

Toad · « **Reply #32 on:** May 25, 2002, 08:49:59 AM »

Hmm, links don't work either.

Let me try this.

First pic:

[img]

Toad · « **Reply #33 on:** May 25, 2002, 08:59:04 AM »

Second pic:

Toad · « **Reply #34 on:** May 25, 2002, 09:03:08 AM »

Third pic.. the BT took some resizing/cropping to get down to size.

deSelys · « **Reply #35 on:** May 25, 2002, 09:18:58 AM »

Toad,

read my post again pls. I haven't said sun glare isn't modelled. Besides, I knew you came from WB. Hence the reference.

The way it is modelled now, hiding in the sun is almost impossible.

However, it was possible in WB. I don't say the way they (Hitech & Pyro, probably) modelled it was perfect, but it was a good compromise IMO.

Using the sun to delay being spotted was a widely used WWII aerial combat tactic. So the sun glare model should allow this tactic in a WWII flight sim. I'm sure you'll agree (gee I begin to sound like Lazs

).

I don't have any data to back up this post. It would need a huge research if we try to take most parameters into account anyway (and wouldn't be worth the effort). Nor do I have your flying experience...just enough to have experienced sun glare from a glider in a few cases (low sun at evening). I was just surprised and disappointed that someone with your experience would defend the sun glare as it is modelled in AH. Hence my (harsh) post....

I hope you'll join the lobby to make HTC adapt their sun glare model....but I'm afraid we won't get over with it without a bribe anyway

SKurj · « **Reply #36 on:** May 25, 2002, 09:21:13 AM »

i didn't say it was uncommon i said discouraged!! +)

I've never read anything that said its good to be close to stall speed in a dangerous multibogey engagement...

or even 1 v 1 +)

Pongo...

Sure the MA sees guys ropin amidst the swarms.. do u land every mission Pongo? +) guys in ww2 did, if they didn't DIE or bail into even worse situations than death, or if lucky into friendly hands.

SKurj

Toad · « **Reply #37 on:** May 25, 2002, 09:57:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by deSelys

...read my post again pls. I haven't said sun glare isn't modelled....

...So the sun glare model should allow this tactic in a WWII flight sim...

..I hope you'll join the lobby to make HTC adapt their sun glare model....but I'm afraid we won't get over with it without a bribe anyway ...

Deselys, please read my posts again. I never said YOU said "sun glare isn't modelled". After you, Alphonse!

TAC implied sun glare isn't modeled.

Nor did I say sun glare is "perfect" or even "adequate" in AH. Again, re-read my posts. I just pointed out that it IS modeled here and to imply that it is not is misleading and, I suspect, deliberately misleading.

Some people see the glass half empty and some see the glass half full. I'm clearly in the "half full" camp. Tac has demonstrated, at least to my satisfaction, with the continual "buff gun" debate that he is in the "half empty" group.

As for "joining the lobby", yes I think there could be a bit more glare effect. However allow me three points here:

1) I doubt most of the non-flyers here realize just how variable "sun glare" is based on time of day, sky condition, and angle off of the sun. Programming this is NOT going to be some simple thing if it is truly "done right".

2) There are a lot of other things I'd like to see HTC spend time on rather than sun glare effect. In short, it's a LOW priority item for me

3) I think in the MA style of fighting and given the other restrictions we suffer from internet lag and small 2D computer screens the problems we encounter are greater than in RL. Also in RL I don't think sun glare is the all-determing factor in a prolonged ACM style engagement (a bounce is different) that some non-pilots would like to make it. So, given the restrictions we work under on computers, enough difficulty has already be added to compensate for a less than realistic sun glare feature.

Just my .02.

deSelys · « **Reply #38 on:** May 25, 2002, 10:02:52 AM »

Hey! Alphonse is my second name (not joking)! How did you know

?

cc with you 3 points, and i'll comment them a bit later, coz I have to go and wife is giving me 'the look' again...

Hangtime · « **Reply #39 on:** May 25, 2002, 01:16:43 PM »

that chapter in bud andersons book is one of my favorites.

the most notable thing that i got outta that 'recollection' was bud's intense love for his plane, his absolute confidence in it's capabilities, and his determinitaion to be the one that left the fight alive.

reality is, had bud known just how good a plane the 109 really was in the vertical he'd probably never have tried it. As it was he got lucky as hell.. his carreer could have ended that day with just 1 cannon round tearing thru his fragile pony, hundereds of miles behind the lines...

bud's mindset is almost an exact mirror into the attitudes carried into combat by every competent fighter pilot of the war.. regardless of side, aircraft flown or circumstances.

It is without doubt that he was a VERY brave man. And so was the guy in the 109.

"i have under my hands the best gawdamned plane ever built, and i'm gonna kick the enemy's bellybutton with it... and gawd help the fool that thinks otherwize..."

as far as a rope-a-dope is concerned.. it had many names, many diffrent implementation techniques, many diffrent conclusions. It all boils down to evaluating the oppositions capabilities and energy state... correctly. Misjudge speed, time, distance and relative energy states and you die. It's almost always a 'chip cashing' move, for if you blow it; yer dead. Not a manuver for the feint of heart in a marginal airplane against a savvy opponent.

Unless yer in a flight sim/game with unlimited lives with nothing more at stake than pixel collection.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #40 on:** May 25, 2002, 03:32:21 PM »

Heya's,

Back to the topic of the thread. Is rope a dope realistic?

My answer is, of course you can do it IRL, the question is would you have the balls to do it.

Bud Anderson did it with his heart in his throat hoping his E wouldn't run out before the 109's did. And then in turn the 109 pilot did the same to him. Bud was maybe 20 years old at the time and still he did it more out of absolute self preservation than any predesigned plan of attack.

In AH we have the luxury of 50 years of hindsight and evaluation as well as the fact that we won't actually die if we are wrong.

I have read accounts of rookie pilots making bad decisions and breaking the cardinal law of fighting "uphill" and loosing there lives as a result. I have also read about Bong and McGuire B&Zing there way to 40 kills. But I don't know if any of us would actually try a rope a dope if the A6M5 behind us was really going to shoot at us with 2 20mill cannons and 12.7mill machine guns with no range markers or Pyro to complain to about the NIK2 being overmodeled. Just a long flaming ride into the ocean while screaming "The NIK is overmodeled......."

How many turn and burners and "quakers" do you think actually survived the war?

Would you risk this??

deSelys · « **Reply #41 on:** May 25, 2002, 03:38:42 PM »

Back to Toad's last post:

your point 1: agreed, but a compromise should be possible to find, without getting to much into the details. I wouldn't change the way the plane is affected by the glare/reflection, but I would make the icon disappear farther from the center of the sun than now.

point 2: low priority indeed, but coding the solution proposed above shouldn't be too much work IMO (off course I may be wrong).

point 3: I agree completely. The main interest would be in bounces or when one wants to avoid detection.

Toad · « **Reply #42 on:** May 25, 2002, 03:51:06 PM »

Now, deselys, you are going to ask them to program a way for me to hold my finger up against the plexiglass and block a large percentage of the sun glare and make it just as easy as it is to do in RL right?

And how much distance more from the center should the plane disappear? Exactly how large should the sun look in diameter anyway? Is the sun "scaled" correctly? Of course, this is going to be different depending on the size of the aircraft right? Because I'd think a little Yak could hide better than say a Lancaster.

Like I said, I have nothing against increasing it. But I'll wager no matter what HTC does, there'll still be complaining. Most likely by people who have never flown themselves, but complaining none the less.

deSelys · « **Reply #43 on:** May 25, 2002, 05:08:58 PM »

Toad, you know the game will never be perfectly realistic (the terms are contradicting each other anyway). But is it a reason not to improve a feature because, even if improved, it won't be perfect? Come on....

About the distance from the sun where icons begin to fade? Dunno. Let's use a rule of thumb....your thumb for instance: you did much flying, didn't you?

About the little finger thingie....low low low priority feature IMO.

About the whining: have you ever seen a change without some?

Toad · « **Reply #44 on:** May 25, 2002, 05:53:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Like I said, I have nothing against increasing it.

Deselys, is this part confusing to you?

I didn't say it couldn't be improved. This WHOLE line of discussion started with TAC basically saying it isn't modeled.

Yeah, I've done a LOT of flying.

My thumb is ~ 1 inch wide, a bit wider perhaps. So now you can figure out how wide to make it in the game. Scale it and the sun together.

Yes, I've seen an AMAZING amount of change in AH accomplished without whining.

See, I believe like everyone's granny told them: "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."

A lot a people have made suggestions in a polite, rational way that have been accepted and implemented.

I haven't seen all that much change result from whines, however.

When you stop and think about that from HTC's side of the desk, it's simply human nature isn't it?

The old "golden rule"? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

Who likes it when people whine at them all the long day?