Warbirds III Free for August, But ....

[Citabria]

lazs your ignorance is monumental

[Zigrat]

actually creamo that is more unrealistic

one area where htc is definitely the best among current flight sims is the flight model. control response is exactly how it should be according to my limited flight experience, and though you might thing roll intertia would play a big role, in reality it doesnt. the damping force of the air on the wing planform is very large and causes a near instantaneous cessation of angular velocity

i think in modern fly by wire planes the effect is even more instantaneous, as teh fcs provides the corrent control surface movement to counteract the (minimal) inertial effects in roll.

[Citabria]

the F4u rear bulkhead is several feet wide.

unless you have found a way to remove your head from your body turn it directly at the tail of the plane and then stand it on the gunsight then what AH has is NOT REALISTIC.

in a real F4u you will be able to see your 6 but only one side of your 6 at a time.

in AH you see both your left 6 and your right 6 in a single view.

linda blair lives on in AH.

[wells]

HS is adamant that he has the data on response for "many" planes and that it currently is correct. I have no opinion on the matter, and that is not why I am not thrilled with it anyway, but that is his stance.

yeah...well...

A B-29 pilot could move his elevator at 70 deg/sec with a stick force of 90-140 lbs/G.  Most fighters come in around 10-20 lbs/G.

[Gadfly]

Doh!  You said how fast.

[ 08-05-2001: Message edited by: Gadfly ]

[Creamo]

Inertia in the roll...that's what I was trying to describe.

I don't know. I love the AH FM, I was just suspect on the pitch and escpecially roll with feeling there was no need to counter the inertia. Who knows...

And just for info, and ref to modern airliners for FM, or feel, is kinda mute.

 Even if it isn't fly by wire, even old 727's have hydraulic operated control surfaces and have to have what they call feedback computers (hydromechanical devices, no computer to them actually) to give the pilot artificial feedback.

[Karnak]

Creamo,

It has nothing to do with fly-by-waire or any other technical gizmo.

1) The inertial weight of an aircraft in a roll is mostly at the center of the roll in the fuselage, or near it in th case of twin engined aircraft.  The closer to the center of the roll, the less inertia is generated per pound of mass.  At the outside of the roll there are only the wings, which are very light.

2) In a roll the wing planeform is directly impacting the air in nearly the least aerodynamic fashion, at least as far as the roll is concerned. Only the deflection of the ailerons forces the wings to move through the air in the least aerodynamic direction. When the ailerons cease to cause deflection of the air, the dominant trait becomes the massive drag of the wing's planeform and the roll ceases nearly instantly.

Look at footage of WWII aircraft.  When they roll, they do so crisply.  In WBIII they generally travel and additional 30 degrees and then slowly return to the intended position, or they decelerate to the intended position.  View footage of WWII aircraft rolling, there is a nice shot of a Spitfire doing it at the end of the "Dark Blue World" trailer.  Notice how crisp the start and stop of the roll is.

[Mathman]

I tried it this morning, and though I didn't spend as much time on it as others, I didn't like it.  Mainly, it was a feeling af going in slow motion and lack of feedback as to whether your bullets were hitting the target or not.  Don't know which is more "real", but I like the feel of AH better.  Maybe down the road things will be different, but until WB is finished and feels better to me, I will stick with AH.

Oh well, just my unenlightened opinion, seeing as, unlike everyone here it seems, I have never flown in a WW2 fighter plane.

-math

[Ozark]

1) Do you have to give iEN your credit card number? (I would rather extract my teeth with a rock than give iEN my credit card number again!!!!!)

2) What is the size of the download?

Ozark

[jihad]

Originally posted by Ozark:
1) Do you have to give iEN your credit card number? (I would rather extract my teeth with a rock than give iEN my credit card number again!!!!!)

2) What is the size of the download?

Ozark

#1. No

#2. 81.4 mb

[Westy MOL]

"the F4u rear bulkhead is several feet wide."

  No, it's not.


"in AH you see both your left 6 and your right 6 in a single view."

 Technically yes. If I use the default six view I can see a *BIT* of both sides of the rudder. "Linda Blare-ish" for sure, but who cares as it's of no use at all due to the FOV being extremely limited. I (unless we have different AH versions) need to map my head position to one side or the other to see back there with an degree of usability.

Hey.  Why not bring the forward views into the debate? To date no sim, I can recall except maybe fighter Duel, has modelled the huge obstructions these long noses create very well at all.

 Anyone want to run with that one????

 -- Westy

[Zigrat]

westy in many planes you can put your head outside the glass. i realy like the way you can position your head to get optimal view, BUT, i think they need to re look at the view limit restrictions. especially on the old planes.

for example the 6 view of the p47-d11 and the p-51b seem realistically bounded. the me-109 or the f4u, otoh, both have too much head movement room imo. i would like them to make it so you cant put your perspective closer than say an inch from the inside of the glass.

that would be great imo.

[Ozark]

Thank You Jihad! <S>

Hmmm....81 megs (WBIII) Vs 18 Megs (AH).

1) Who writes a tighter code?

2) Who was on the cutting edge 2 years ago? (Remember the Buzz about movable control surfaces back then?)

3) Who would you trust with your credit card number? (We should be very thankful for Yankee!)

4) Look at the progress in the last 2 years.

To be very honest, I really wish WBIII well.
However, I will NEVER give iEN the chance to rip me off again with their lax customer service.

I guess from my point of view, it's not the sim....It's company that stands behind it that counts in my eyes.

Thank you HTC.

Ozark

<edit> added: "from my point of view"</edit>

[ 08-05-2001: Message edited by: Ozark ]

[Westy MOL]

"westy in many planes you can put your head outside the glass. i realy like the way you can position your head to get optimal view, BUT, i think they need to re look at the view limit restrictions. especially on the old planes."
 
 I agree whole heartedly Zigrat. Several planes are too liberal with thier ability to 'stick' ones head out the side of the cockpit. The 109 is far too generous all around by quite a large margin for another example.

 However I'd hesitate on asking HTC to restrict any views on high back fuselage aircarft unless those that in reality had rear view mirrors finally got them - Spit, P47D-11, F4U etc...   Not sure about KI-61, ME109 etc. having them.

 Westy

[juzz]

What's funny is that WarBirds III DOES have the "Linda Blair" six view...