Author Topic: What is more realistic?  (Read 572 times)

Offline ispar

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
      • http://None :-)
What is more realistic?
« Reply #15 on: May 21, 2001, 07:40:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by RearGunner:
Thanks for the correction. I don't really know much about the Seafire and considering that it's a Seafire Mk2 in AH. But I don't understand what you mean by a Mk IX being just a Mk V smoothed over for a bigger engine. In that respect, a Mk IX is a Mk I with a bigger engine. The only difference between a Mk I and a Mk IX is 40 cm in length presumably all on the nose to accomadate the bigger engine. They are all just versions of each other. But I think you should feel the extra 300 hp somehow.

[This message has been edited by RearGunner (edited 05-21-2001).]

There are actually several changes to the airframe in the Mk IX. The most notable of these is the addition of a radiator intake on the starboard wing, in addition to the one already on the left. The plane is significantly heavier than a Mark I, the fuselage is a bit more cut down, the wing design is slightly improved, etc. etc. etc.
Additionally, 40 cm is fairly significant as an increase in size goes, it being enough, AFAIK to change the CoG of an aircraft.

Could be wrong though  .

------------------
"E's bound to be guilty, or 'e wouldn't be 'ere!
Starboard gun! FIRE!
Shootings to good for 'im, kick the louse out!
Port gun! FIRE!"
- Old chant used to time saluting of guns on ships

RearGunner

  • Guest
What is more realistic?
« Reply #16 on: May 21, 2001, 08:38:00 PM »
I don't know where you get your info from, but wherever, it's all wrong. The extra radiator air intake was already on a Mk1 as you can see in this picture.
 http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/spitpix/ar213_l.jpg

Also, the only changes to the wing was for different gun types. The only changes to the airframe in respect to versions after the MkIV is that it was strengthened. Also other special versions, like those used in Africa. All the major and minor changes are metioned in the SpitfireSociety web page. Not once does it mention what you said. The link is here:
 http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/whatmark.htm#MkI

RearGunner

  • Guest
What is more realistic?
« Reply #17 on: May 21, 2001, 08:47:00 PM »
Bah...just realised that is an oil cooler on the Mk1, from the Mk 7 onwards did the symetrical air intakes appear. Ok, I'll give you that much, but show me evidance of the other things you said.

Offline eagl

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6769
What is more realistic?
« Reply #18 on: May 21, 2001, 11:18:00 PM »
To properly tweak your joystick controls, you gotta do something like this:

1)  Calibrate the stick, throttle, and rudders in windows control panel.

2)  Enter AH setup, and calibrate the controls.  Make sure you APPLY the new calibration.

3)  Go to the stick adjustment setup in AH, and look at the little box.  Wiggle the stick and rudders around and notice what happens to the little cross and lines in the little box window.  

4)  Adjust the sliders, deadband, and dampening until the little stick and rudder symbols move SMOOTHLY as you move the stick.  The deadband should be as small as possible while preventing an position jiggling when you center the controls.  Start out with the dampening set to zero, and adjust that LATER based on if you get excessive nose bounce or find yourself rocking the plane back and forth in roll while lining up for shots.

Some people have to adjust the stick scaling to all 100, some use a linear adjustment (10,20,30,40,50...), some use a convex curved adjustment (10,12,15,20,30,50...), some use a concave curve (10,30,45,55,60...), but I had to continually tweak my scaling in a non-linear fashion to make it so the little stick position cross moved smoothly and predictably when I moved the joystick.  These settings will be different for each person.

Apply the changes after each scaling slider change.  I also recommend starting out with the roll damper set to zero and all roll scaling set to 100.

After you get things set up, fly some offline.  Try to line up shots on the drones.  If you find yourself overshooting your roll angle, try adjusting the roll dampener.  If you find you have pitch nose bounce and are shoving the stick fwd and back to try to line up your shots, adjust the pitch dampener then try again.  

If you find that you only have pitch bounce when the stick is near center, adjust the first few scaling sliders down a bit.  If you only have bounce near half-stick, adjust the middle sliders a bit.  If you are near full aft or fwd stick and have nose bounce, you are not trimming enough  

Hope this helps.  I spend about 2 hours at the last con adjusting my stick settings before the dueling tournament, and I found that my gunnery improved dramatically after I spent the time making adjustments.  When I got home with the sticks I won at the tourny (hehe sorry LLB) I again spent some time adjusting the settings.  It's time well spent and your flying and gunnery will definately improve if your stick is set up the way YOU like it.


------------------
eagl <squealing Pigs> BYA
Oink Oink To War!!!
Everyone I know, goes away, in the end.

Offline Krusher

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
What is more realistic?
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2001, 09:38:00 AM »
I don't think my stick setup is all that special, I have seen others mention the same setup in other threads. If you want to see screen shot of my set up send me an email. I use a MS FF pro.

ratkrusher@yahoo.com

Krush

Offline batdog

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1533
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com/
What is more realistic?
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2001, 10:43:00 AM »
 Rudder pedals... take the rudder off the stick and use rudder pedals or Keyboard. I saw my nose bounce improve tenfold.


xBAT
Of course, I only see what he posts here and what he does in the MA.  I know virtually nothing about the man.  I think its important for people to realize that we don't really know squat about each other.... definately not enough to use words like "hate".

AKDejaVu

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
What is more realistic?
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2001, 10:50:00 AM »
Flying flight sims since 1987, and flown real A/C in my life as well (However, never a "warbird").  CFS2 FM's simply stink.  That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!

[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 05-22-2001).]

Offline sling322

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3510
What is more realistic?
« Reply #22 on: May 22, 2001, 12:18:00 PM »
I agree with batdog.....I have a "twisty" stick and I had to turn off the input of the stick and use the keyboard because of the bouncing that was going on.  Just ordered a Saitek combo and am hoping to get the CH pedals along with it in a couple weeks....maybe that will change my status from just a regular target drone to a target drone with a new stick and rudder control.  

Offline wolf37

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 151
What is more realistic?
« Reply #23 on: May 22, 2001, 05:29:00 PM »
hiya all:

sling, when you get the peddles, remember to use them when your in a fight. LOL

I had rudder control on my stick and went out and bought peddles, and used an old stick I had. I like the stick much better but keep forgetting to use the rudder peddles when I get into a fight. and yes, I am a dweeb pilot, and proud of it.

wolf37

Offline ispar

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
      • http://None :-)
What is more realistic?
« Reply #24 on: May 22, 2001, 06:55:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by RearGunner:
Bah...just realised that is an oil cooler on the Mk1, from the Mk 7 onwards did the symetrical air intakes appear. Ok, I'll give you that much, but show me evidance of the other things you said.

Dangit... have to dig out Spitfire in Action again... btw, the CoG statement is a guess, I have never come across anything to that regard. I could be incorrect.

Alright:

Note: The letter designation following the Mk # of the plane denotes which wing type was used. A (8 .303 MGs), B (4 .303 MGs, two cannon w/60 r.p.g.) or C (2 .50 MGs, 2 cannon w/120 r.p.g.). Performance should be unaffected by various wing types, which were identical in size (yeah, you got me there RearGunner  )

Spitfire Mk 1

Span 36 ft. 10 in
Length 29 ft. 11 in
Height 12 ft. 7 3/4 in
Wing area 242 sq. ft.
Weight, normal loaded 6,200 lb, wing loading 26lb/sq.in.
Maximum speed 362 mph (alt not given  )
RoC 2,530 ft/min (again no more specific info given)

Spitfire Mk Vb

Span 36 ft 10 in
Length 29 ft 11 in
Height 9 ft 11 in
Wing area 242 sq ft

Normal loaded weight 6,750 lb

Max speed 369 mph at 19500 ft
RoC 4750 ft/min

Spitfire Mk IXc

Span 36 ft 10 in
Length 31 ft 0 1/2 in, later versions 31 ft 4 1/2 in
Height 12 ft 7 3/4 in
Wing area 242 sq ft

Max speed 408 mph at 25,000 ft
312 mph at sea level
Initial RoC 4100 ft/min

Oddly enough, the fuselage seems to have been cut down in size between the I and V, but increased again on the IX.

The cutting down of the fuselage from behind the canopy occurred in the Mk XVI and later models. Oops!

So, it looks like I was about 60-75% wrong. Oh well, we learn something every day, no?  

------------------
"E's bound to be guilty, or 'e wouldn't be 'ere!
Starboard gun! FIRE!
Shootings to good for 'im, kick the louse out!
Port gun! FIRE!"
- Old chant used to time saluting of guns on ships

RearGunner

  • Guest
What is more realistic?
« Reply #25 on: May 22, 2001, 07:11:00 PM »
Yeah we do learn something every day.   I get things wrong often so you're not the only one, lol.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
What is more realistic?
« Reply #26 on: May 22, 2001, 07:18:00 PM »
ispar,

The stats on your Spitfire MkV are WAY off.

The MkIX is simply a MkV with the minimum modifications to take a Merlin 61 engine.  The height and width will be identical, length might be slightly longer on the IX.

A climb rate of 4,750 feet would have only been seen in the wet dreams of Spit V pilots or nightmares of 1941 Luftwaffe pilots.
Spit V should climb at just below 3,000ft per min.

RearGunner,

Spit IX introduced the symetrical radiators.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Bring the Mosquito FB.MkVI Series 2 to Aces High!!!

Sisu
-Karnak
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Duckwing6

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 324
      • http://www.pink.at
What is more realistic?
« Reply #27 on: May 23, 2001, 01:34:00 AM »
Pretty much al boxeed sims out there .. and being a R/L pilot i'd say that AH has one of the best FMs ...

I knind of dislike the simplified engine controls tho.

DW6

MrSiD

  • Guest
What is more realistic?
« Reply #28 on: May 23, 2001, 03:48:00 AM »
Easyest way to lose _all_ stick related bouncing / spiking..

Get an optical stick. F.E. M$ Precision Pro.. Gotta love the smooth action.

RearGunner

  • Guest
What is more realistic?
« Reply #29 on: May 23, 2001, 07:36:00 AM »
Karnak, I got my info at the SpitfireSociety:
 http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/whatmark.htm#MkVII

It says:

 
Quote
Type 351-Mk VII

This introduced the 60 series Merlin engines, with 2-speed, 2-stage superchargers. The aircraft consequently had the symmetrical large radiators under each wing, rather than the asymmetric radiator/oil cooler combinations of earlier Marks, and a larger rudder.


Mk VII is same as Mk 7 for those who can't read roman numerals.