Please Do This...

[StSanta]

Wut, you guys actually USE CT?

To me it's a liability, not an asset  

------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"

[Toad]

The real point is most of the people crying for "more realism!" simply have a real selective view of realism.

They don't want it all, just the parts they personally THINK are "real".

For example RAM, this quote:

"it had fixed tabs on aileron and rudder because it was very stable"

tells me you really have no idea why a fixed tab is on a flight control or what it is supposed to do. I'm sure Creamo could tell you and I could too. But you wouldn't believe us. However, if you think your statement is a true cause/effect relationship, you don't understand fixed trim tabs. Poot! Realism just hopped out your window!

Tell me this Ram. You KNOW any of these MG or Cannon rounds will travel much farther than 1.0-1.2. Do you want HT to model their real "accurate" and also "effective" ranges? That would be realism. Do you want that?

Selective Realism.

Creamo,

Ah, I wasn't bashing ya! I rarely use CT because I think I do a better job than it does.   (So much for Auto-dependency, eh?) I will click it on and off if I do some maneuver that very quickly alters my speed, just to get it back close & fast.

I totally agree with you that trim in AH, particularly as modeled with respect to elevator performance, isn't simulated here very well. If IRC, CT was an attempt to fix that and it can be argued either way whether or not it helped.

In fact, trim here has given some folks a total misconception of why trim is even on an airplane. (see above   ) As you know and more importantly understand trim is a secondary flight control. There's a lot of people here that don't understand that and what it should mean in a FM.

I DON'T compare AH to realism. I compare it to GAMES and it's a damn good one. I think you and I agree here.

As for that "modern" guy... I'm an old timer.   I preach the "power of the thumb" to my accolytes. A simple twitch of the thumb and George in all his mindless glory is removed from the control loop. I let George do cruises and climbs and descents above 20K, in controlled airspace. The rest I'd rather do myself.

Just flew the redeye in from the coast without A/T. It was brutal! I almost died! It was the end of the world! NOT!   Saved about 2.0 above planned burn running the throttles myself.

I think you should get Carty to send you the $ you deserve. (..and I agree you don't get enough.) Heard NW did pretty good. You should top those guys easily... G/L!

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Toad:

tells me you really have no idea why a fixed tab is on a flight control or what it is supposed to do. I'm sure Creamo could tell you and I could too. But you wouldn't believe us. However, if you think your statement is a true cause/effect relationship, you don't understand fixed trim tabs. Poot! Realism just hopped out your window!

fixed trim tab was a fixed surface, set at the field at a determinate angle wich could not be changed during flight. The tab was set following pilot's preferences, so the stick and rudders were "centered" and needed no pilot input at a certain speed. Of course as the speed varied, the aircraft tended to change the attitude, and pilot input was needed to keep the plane flying straight.

Now, Toad, I dont know when was the last time you flew a 190, but let me tell you that in AH with the plane perfectly trimmed for a 150mph IAS speed, if you enter a dive, for the time you reach 400mph IAS in a dive you need LOTS of STICK DEFLECTION to prevent the plane rolling to the right. Over it, the trim is absolutely needed because the stick is not enough to keep the plane in a straight attitude. Not to talk about the BIG trim needed for elevator, elevator wich, BTW should be automatic  

Now tell me that the real life 190s did that,dude. The 190 was a very pilot friendly, extremely STABLE plane at all speeds. Very few pilot workload was needed for the plane to fly,so the pilot could concentrate on fighting. Read any accounts on it.

BTW Flying with the plane severely out of trim is qualified as "pilot workload". Just FYI.

I think that it is you who doesnt know too much here. I, indeed, and as you can read above, DO.


 

Tell me this Ram. You KNOW any of these MG or Cannon rounds will travel much farther than 1.0-1.2. Do you want HT to model their real "accurate" and also "effective" ranges? That would be realism. Do you want that?

Yes. And if you get rid of the range icon, the better. I bet you a dinner that the medium hitting range "suddenly" drops, and that almost no hits are attained at ranges over 500 yards.

Wanna bet?


[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 05-02-2001).]

[Wlfgng]

nope.. tried CT when it first came out..
lasted about 1 sortie..
has been off since.

During that single sortie I kept saying to myself.. "WTF  I can't control this POS"
turned it off and   whew.. back to 'normal'

[Creamo]

Toad, you respond intelligent in spades...thank you. That's all the smart, obvious response I trolled for.

R4metz, your using CT that actually inhibits any part of realism HTC employs for new people or as i assume without HOTAS setups, is fitting.

Please dont interject your whining, you cant possibly know tard.

[AKDejaVu]

CT has its uses in certain planes.. in others its definately a hinderance.

When I flew the Yak-9U I used CT when not dogfighting to keep the plane neutral.  With the F6F-5, this does not work at all.  Its better to fly without CT in that plane at all times.

AKDejaVu

[Kieran]

 

Just flew the redeye in from the coast without A/T. It was brutal! I almost died! It was the end of the world! NOT!  Saved about 2.0 above planned burn running the throttles myself.

Why do I get the idea this means Toad is a RL pilot?

FWIW Ram, the anecdotal comments you refer to are comparative in nature- meaning, compared to a 109 the workload is light, perhaps. Compared to contemporary aircraft the 190 is well-harmonized on all axiis, etc. If you are suggesting that one twist of aluminum on the elevator or aileron trim tab will cover it for all speed ranges, thus removing all workload from the pilot, that just can't be so.

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Kieran:
FWIW Ram, the anecdotal comments you refer to are comparative in nature- meaning, compared to a 109 the workload is light, perhaps. Compared to contemporary aircraft the 190 is well-harmonized on all axiis, etc. If you are suggesting that one twist of aluminum on the elevator or aileron trim tab will cover it for all speed ranges, thus removing all workload from the pilot, that just can't be so.

No no no, kieren ,dont take me wrong. I dont say that the plane could keep a perfect steady course with no pilot input at any speed   . But fact is that the plane was very stable and the relative changes of attitudes as the speed increased of decreased were relatively minor compared with other planes. And I certainly doubt that a 250mph speed change the plane demand so much stick input as we have to do in AH. That is all.

BTW I'm not talking about german tests, the allied test pilots who tested the plane (for instance, the one I can think now is Eric Brown) after the war said that it was pretty stable and very pilot friendly compared with the allied planes.

Creamo....I dont have a hotas (I wish I had   ).



[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 05-02-2001).]

[Jebo44]

Since there definetly seems to be two distinct sides here why didn't HT perk an additional plane to make the transition a little more easier??? No sarcasim intended, honest question here.

[Kieran]

To me it isn't an issue of whether or not the C is perked; it is a matter of what happens next.

Perk 'em all. This is somewhat of an inevitablity anyway, as perking is based at least in part on popularity. There will always be a #1, hence there will always be another plane perked. There are ways that have been forwarded to accomplish this, we'll see what happens.

[milnko]

Hey Creamo I sent ya an email on you joystick  probs

In case ya see this 1st tho look at this thread http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum10/HTML/000850.html

[Toad]

"it had fixed tabs on aileron and rudder because it was very stable"

This is simply incorrect.

Use of fixed aileron or rudder tabs is/was unrelated to aircraft stability. Rather, it was an early, technologically simple attempt to provide a means to relieve stick pressure at one airspeed (or one very narrow range of airspeeds).

The airspeed chosen was almost always normal cruise airspeed. That alone should tell you what trim does.

In-flight adjustable aileron and rudder tabs were a later, slightly more sophisticated means of accomplishing the same effect over varying speed ranges.

Ram, it does not suprise me that different aileron trim is required at 150 vice 400. I'm sure the reverse is true as well. Trimmed for 400, does it then take a lot of aileron deflection at 150?

If you had set a fixed tab for hands off flight at 150 it probably wouldn't be right at 400. I have no idea of knowing how much stick deflection it would take to counter it, but I some how doubt it would be very much. The difference in size between most ailerons and its trim tab is just too great.

Nonetheless and nonethemore, I'm not arguing AH's modeling of trim. It is the way they made it and is an integral part of their FM. We now have to live with it. From information I have be given, CT was an attempt to make trim function more like it actually would in the real world. I have no interest arguing all year over whether or not they were successful.

Keiran, yes, I've been flying professionally for about 27 years now.

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Toad:
"it had fixed tabs on aileron and rudder because it was very stable"

This is simply incorrect.

Nope. It is true. What is NOT true is that, because having fixed tabs, a plane is automatically to be assumed to have good stability. For instance, the 109 had no rudder tabs until the G10 version, yet it was highly unstable in that axis. Many other planes had fixed tabs, and that does NOT mean they were very stable.

But the 190 WAS stable in all the speed ranges. REad Eric Brown's quotes after he tested the 190A after the war, and read how did the 190A compare with the allied fighters in this regard.

BTW and just as a reminder. I'm not claiming for the AH model to be changed in this regard. I say that if the realistic trim tabs were modelled, then the 190 stability should be modelled aswell. As it is in AH, is no biggie. Right aileron trim and elevator down trim during the dive, and problem solved.

[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 05-02-2001).]

[Kieran]

Toad-

I knew you were a pilot- I was being sardonic.  

Ram-

Let me take a stab at the trim/stability issue. Stability has nothing to do with the trim per se, it is a function of CG, center of lift, thrust line, wing incidence, moments, and all sorts of cool engineering stuff I barely understand. The fixed trim is designed specifically to do what Toad suggested; trim the aircraft for easier flying in the speed range in which the aircraft will most often find itself.

[Toad]

No, Ram.

It had fixed trim tabs for exactly the reason Kieran stated.

That's why fixed trim tabs exist.

That's why ANY trim tab exists, fixed or otherwise.

<EDIT> Oh, BTW, when we DO get rid of icons, you realize that the totally unrealistic wide-angle field of view has to go too? We've got to cut it down to what a human can normally see at a glance. This will make aircraft shapes about TWICE as large as they are now and require about TWICE the number of separate views to look around.

So, gun range 2.0+ and airplanes 2X the current size, right? You're going to help campaign for this "full realism"?  

No selective realism, right? All or nothing?  

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 05-02-2001).]