Please Do This...

[Jekyll]

Geez Toad, have you only got one eye?  Normal human field of view is between 160 degrees and 180 degrees.

In AH, that 180 degree FOV has to be compressed into a 90 degree FOV due to graphics limitations, which is why aircraft appear to be half their correct size.

As for effective guns range being 2000yds, I've got no problem with that at all.  Of course, you couldn't rely on your laser-ranging eyeballs anymore, since NO range data would be supplied.  If you can hit someone from 2000yds, you're a great shot and deserve the kill  

No selective realism, right? All or nothing?  

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Kieran:

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.

ARG! is my english THAT bad?!

 

Originally posted by R4M
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.

I DO know what the fixed tabs are for. And I INSIST that the 190 was a stable plane,wich does NOT mean that "magically" the plane didnt change attitude during flight.It just means that the change of attitude was LESS, LIGHTER than in other planes of the same time.

I DONT say that the 190 was fitted with fixed tabs because it needed no trimming, I SAY that it was not a big problem, nor a serious drawback as the plane was so stable that the relative pilot workload at speeds out of those for the ones wich the plane was trimmed for at land, was very low.

Really is my english that bad?...or do I express myself so bad?  

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Toad:

<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?    

REally this is getting under my skin. This is not that you dont understand what I say, this is that you simply didnt read it.

NOW READ BEFORE TALKING PLEASE!

 

Originally posted by R4M:
And I would like realistic ammo counters too. That is NO ammo counter except on the german planes. And more limited six views than the ones we currently have. And no icon ------->******range******<------- under 1K to make true the need for "Hartmann's solution" unless you are a true marksman (Wich,BTW I'm not).

And:


 

Originally posted by R4M:
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.

NOW you get it?

[edit]I'm with jekyll on this one[/edit]



[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 05-03-2001).]

[G10Whore]

i thought the G10 was a ground crew modifacation and not really a produced model

?

[moose]

baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaa

[Tilt]

 

Originally posted by R4M:

If you ask me, Toad. Yes. I would like the slats on the 109s regardless the assimetrical deployement. .

Lavochkin slats likewise..........

As for the rest? If it doesn't make stuff more complicated I would prefer that the AH AC has no more than the RL AC had.

Tilt

[juzz]

RAM appears to be misusing the word "stability", which is confusing.

Eg: "For instance, the 109 had no rudder tabs until the G10 version, yet it was highly unstable in that axis."

To me, that says that the Me 109 was unstable in the yaw axis.

But what RAM probably means is that it had large changes in rudder trim at different speeds.

Here is what Eric Brown had to say about the 190:
 

A remarkable aspect of this fighter was the lack of re-trimming required for various stages of a flight. There was no aileron trimmer in the cockpit, but if the external adjustable trim tab had been inadvertently moved as a result, for example, of a member of groundscrew pushing against it, an out-of-trim force of considerable proportions could result at high speed...

...The elevators proved to be heavy at all speeds and particularly so above 350mph when they became heavy enough to impose a tactical restriction on the fighter as regards pull-out from low-level dives. This heaviness was accentuated because of the nose down pitch which occured at high speeds when trimmed for slow speeds(in AH this effect is opposite, due to the compromised nature of trim in AH ). The critical speed at which this occurred was around 220mph and could be easily gauged in turns. At lower speeds, the German fighter had a tendency to tighten up the turn and I found it necessary to apply slight forward pressure on the stick, but above the previously-mentioned critical figure, the changeover called for some backward pressure to hold the Focke-Wulf in the turn...

...At the normal cruise of 330mph at 8,000ft, the stability was very good directionally, unstable laterally and neutral longitudinally.
Some penalty is, of course, always invoked by such handling attributes as those possessed by the Fw 190, and in the case of this fighter the penalty was to be found in the fact that it was not at all easy to fly on instruments. Of course, Kurt Tank's aircraft was originally conceived solely as a clear-weather day fighter. It is significant then that all-weather versions were fitted with the Patin PKS 12 autopilot.

BTW; the Fw 190 DOES NOT have any sort of automatic tailplane incidence control. The incidence angle of the tailplane is manually controlled via an electric actuator, which makes changes of trim quick and effortless on the pilots part(like using a TV remote).

[Kieran]

Exactly, Juzz, and it was something I failed to make clear when I broke down the explanation of trim tabs. That was the particular line that lead me to believe he hadn't quite gotten the point.

[Toad]

Don't choke on that hook, Ram.

So, now you are on the BBS as being in favor of ICONS right? Just without range under 1000?  

BTW, since there were no ICONS in RL(tm), having Icons would again be Selective Realism.  

Can't have that, now can we? 100% all the way, all the time!  

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Toad:
So, now you are on the BBS as being in favor of ICONS right? Just without range under 1000?  

That SOMETHING REASONABLE what I would like, yes.


 

BTW, since there were no ICONS in RL(tm), having Icons would again be Selective Realism.

Can't have that, now can we? 100% all the way, all the time!  

IF you tell me that AH is getting rid of icons in the MA, I would say that is not a good choice, because we have all sorts of plane for each side. You wouldnt know if that 109 is knit or bish, and so you would be shooting down friends and foes alike. For the Main arena the best I can expect is the range information to be quitted under 1K. And that is the reason I so many times have said that I want a HA.

Take a look the thread about the Hostile Shores icon settings suggested for the MA where I say that I even doubt we will see a reduction in the "enemy icon" range. There I say that I would like HS settings for an HA because HTC has said lots of times that the icons are here to stay.

In short, icons are here to stay in the MA, and with a good reason. But for an HA, with limited planesets for each side, I dont see the reason why we should have any sort of icons.

Oh and, toad, once again I forgot you are NOT worth an explanation. You are jumping around takin advantage of anything you can to take a laugh at me. You are not discussing things seriouly but having fun with my difficulties to express my ideas. I wont simply answer you again, unless its to rebate a blatant lie. You are not worth my time.

[R4M]

   

Originally posted by juzz:
RAM appears to be misusing the word "stability", which is confusing.

Eg: "For instance, the 109 had no rudder tabs until the G10 version, yet it was highly unstable in that axis.". In other words, the need of pilot input to keep the plane in a straight-flying attitude was MINIMAL compared with other planes, including allied iron (as is seen in Eric Brown's book). That is what I've tried to explain from the start.

To me, that says that the Me 109 was unstable in the yaw axis.

But what RAM probably means is that it had large changes in rudder trim at different speeds.

Yep! that is what I mean. Take a look at my posts where I talk about " The 190 was a very pilot friendly, extremely STABLE plane at all speeds. "

The 109 needed HUGE left trim input to keep the plane in a straight flight as the plane accelerated. Until the trim tabs were included in G10's rudder, that input had to come from the pilot; requiring lots of work and force to keep the plane centered. So I said that the g10 had bad stability on the rudder as the speeds changed.

By the way, thanks for your Eric Brown's quote. His first paragraph explains my words better than all my posts here...
Now I understand that my english is REALLY THAT bad    

[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 05-03-2001).]

[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 05-03-2001).]

[Toad]

Selective Realism.

[MANDOBLE]

Just a question. Is worth the usage of CT? I tested it only once and didnt like the experience at all. Is CT the equivalent to an autotrim for any speed? or an autotrim for any angle while you dont move the stick?

[Lephturn]

CT is basically "sorta close auto-trim for any speed".  Meaning it adjust your trim condition as speed changed to something that's "close" based on a chart or something.

What it doesn't do well is deal with very low speeds, very high speeds, or flaps.  When I fly the Jug, I use Combat Trim.  It's great for cruising around, for BnZ work within a reasonable speed range, and for energy fighting where there are large speed changes happening.  That's most of my fighting right there.  The beauty of it is, with any manual trim adjustment the CT gets kicked off.  So, when I'm in a slow fight, turning with some flap, I add manual trim nose up.  When I am diving to 550 MPH, I normally tap the nose-down trim at 450 or so to disengage CT so that as my speed increases the plane will start to natuarally nose up.  I'll trim nose up a bit if needed to pull out.

Some guys disable it always.  I almost never disable it... although I likely should more of the time.  For things like letting go of the stick to type something, it's great, so I use it a lot especially training.  

------------------
Sean "Lephturn" Conrad - Aces High Chief Trainer

A proud member of the mighty Flying Pigs
http://www.flyingpigs.com

Check out Lephturn's Aerodrome for AH articles and training info!

[MANDOBLE]

Thanks Lephturn, I'll give it a second try.