Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: tactic on September 21, 2005, 01:33:42 PM
-
Vapor trails from high alt bombers would look cool, Fighters having vapor trails off wings etc.. would look cool too. They do have those occure in certain conditions, correct?
-
Yes they would be cool but I'd guess most would not want this as it is an unnecessary drain on frame rates.
-
262s and the other 2 jets should have them then
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Yes they would be cool but I'd guess most would not want this as it is an unnecessary drain on frame rates.
A simple remedy to this is just make it an option to show them or not. Exactly like you can disable skins and the like.
-
how about another kind of vapor trails...?
For example when you make a high G manuver at medium speeds and make a turn at very high speeds the vapor trails should appear onn the wingtips.
-
This has been a debate over the past several years.
I don’t know if you can do a search (im too lazy) or if the threads are still even here. With all the new updating of the boards.
One solution that was brought up was, just adding the fuel leak between the ranges of 18k through 30k. We'd be able to distinguish a box formation of bombers opposed to 4 fighters.
Leading to, hmmm.. if I knew it were bombers (do I ReAllY?!??) want to climb to them?! Fighters, I'd Probably turn tail and run.
Then again, I think HT just doesn't want to deal with them right now, with tod coming out. I'd want all their time spent there. Then again, that’s just me. :D
-
In the MA the smoke is disabled. Can we model the smoke to stay 1 color and turn on at a certain G level or alt. ??
-
vapor trails will defntly show up in thsi gam esoem day soon..
i mean..wtf..we got SHELL CASINGS falling from gun breachs now...WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WOOOOOOOOOOOO
I love all that detail stuff...even if my oc 2.0pent chip is frying eggs
-
At the airshow this summer, Dogg and I were grining at the Hi-G con trails when the yak9 doing his demonstration (it was humid that day). Oddly enough I find myself agreeing with BGB, we have shell casings, why not con trails?
-
Buffs at high altitude? Now there is a novel thought. Hummmm. By high altitude, you do mean above 500 feet. Correct? :lol
Seriously. I would be nice, but I would rather see the energy spent on something else. Like weather and new maps.
LTARsqrl
-
that would be a good idea morph
-
Originally posted by 1K3
how about another kind of vapor trails...?
For example when you make a high G manuver at medium speeds and make a turn at very high speeds the vapor trails should appear onn the wingtips.
Like this. (http://www.furballunderground.com/misc/vt.wmv)
-
Would definately bring much more immersion if hard turns would create vapor behind the leading edge. Another thing that looks wrong in AH IMO is the AOA behaviour in turns.
If you compare real guncam video to AH video the first thing you'll notice is how real planes first change AOA and then start turning as the aerodynamic forces overcome the kinetic energy. In AH we don't have such an effect as far as I see it, the planes fly 'on rails'.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
Like this. (http://www.furballunderground.com/misc/vt.wmv)
like that!!!
thx for the video.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Would definately bring much more immersion if hard turns would create vapor behind the leading edge. Another thing that looks wrong in AH IMO is the AOA behaviour in turns.
If you compare real guncam video to AH video the first thing you'll notice is how real planes first change AOA and then start turning as the aerodynamic forces overcome the kinetic energy. In AH we don't have such an effect as far as I see it, the planes fly 'on rails'.
"the planes fly on rails"
No they absolutely do not. They are as close to the real thing as you can get without actually getting into a REAL plane.
Your assumption couldnt be further from the truth.
-
Originally posted by tactic
Fighters having vapor trails off wings etc
That actually isn't vapour
-
Originally posted by frank3
That actually isn't vapour
Actually that's exactly what it is.
The wings of an airplane cause a drop in air pressure in the vicinity of the wing (this is partly what allows a plane to fly). This drop in air pressure brings with it a drop in temperature, which can cause water to condense out of the air and form a contrail.
The do not last as long as contrails from engine exhaust because the drop in temperature is not as extreme.
-
No they absolutely do not. They are as close to the real thing as you can get without actually getting into a REAL plane.
Really Morpheus? How come AHFilm looks so different compared to real guncams then?
I've never seen a plane in AH 'slide' from kinetic forces like witnessed in real world guncams.
So what you're basically saying is that HT modeled every fighter plane with precision to the point with nothing left to be added? :D
Untill the next version and the new improved FM.
Don't be overly harsh on the subject Morph.
-
Im not at all, and the the planes DO have slip to them. The film viewer is difficult to see any slip even by using the "trail". Also it is difficult to judge how much slip there is because you cant actually feel it like you can in a real plane.
To say anything such as game that tries to simulate something as complex as flight is perfect would in fact be imposible. There are far too many variables. Although hitech does come very close.
I dont think I am be harsh at all. I think your statement is though. Back in Ace High 1 they were on rails. If you flew then, you should know there is a big difference in how they fly in cirtain situations.
Simply saying they're on rails... What would you like the planes to do? Pull 360 degree flat spins while still maintaining forward movement? Not going to happen.
-
If you compare real guncam video to AH video the first thing you'll notice is how real planes first change AOA and then start turning as the aerodynamic forces overcome the kinetic energy. In AH we don't have such an effect as far as I see it, the planes fly 'on rails'.
Would you post some films that show this?
Not in this thread though please because its already on its way to being hijacked.
-
By rails I meant that the planes seem to follow changes in AOA very quickly. In AH film this can be witnessed well when the film maker had a spiky stick. The stick spikes create sharp changes in AOA and the plane seems to bounce very sharply after them when in real life I assume nothing else except slight changes in AOA and drag would occur from them.
I think that it's a gameplay concession - if the movements would be modeled authentically it would make gunnery much harder. The nose would bounce more than it does now as a result of stick movement.
Test some extreme low speed, low alt flying offline. Fly at stall limit and make a hard pull on the stick.
You'll notice that the AOA hardly changes at all, what you quickly bounce up and get a quick snap stall. My assumption is that a real plane would behave differently in the given scenario. The AOA would change violently droping the tail, stalling the wing, dragging the speed violently down and sending the plane to the ground in an unrecoverable spin.
In AH currently it's quite easy to go to stall speed, pull very hard on stick at stall speed and regain control with either increasing to full power or pushing stick slight forward to gain the speed back.
I made a small film offline where I flew at stall speed yanking the stick hard back, almost 90 degree angle to the ground at extremely low altitude. See it from external view and you'll notice how sharply the plane follows stick input with 90mph speed, full power. And then tell me I'd be able to do that in a real plane. :)
http://users.kymp.net/p404508a/film220.ahf
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
By rails I meant that the planes seem to follow changes in AOA very quickly. In AH film this can be witnessed well when the film maker had a spiky stick. The stick spikes create sharp changes in AOA and the plane seems to bounce very sharply after them when in real life I assume nothing else except slight changes in AOA and drag would occur from them.
I think that it's a gameplay concession - if the movements would be modeled authentically it would make gunnery much harder. The nose would bounce more than it does now as a result of stick movement.
Test some extreme low speed, low alt flying offline. Fly at stall limit and make a hard pull on the stick.
You'll notice that the AOA hardly changes at all, what you quickly bounce up and get a quick snap stall. My assumption is that a real plane would behave differently in the given scenario. The AOA would change violently droping the tail, stalling the wing, dragging the speed violently down and sending the plane to the ground in an unrecoverable spin.
In AH currently it's quite easy to go to stall speed, pull very hard on stick at stall speed and regain control with either increasing to full power or pushing stick slight forward to gain the speed back.
It is very simple (for the most part) to recover from the kinds of stalls youre talking about in real life. And yes for the most part the planes in real life do act in a similar way. Regaining control of a stall is to simply restore lift over the wing that is no longer creating it. In the situation your talking about. I assume you know how to get out of that kind of stall because you made mention how easy it was to recover from.
In a real plane you use the same basic stick inputs to regain controled flight as you do in game. The reason i know this is because when i first did a low speed stall in real life (which felt just like aces high as far as stick inputs), you do almost exactly what you're talkinga bout, which is bring the stick all the way back the nose will come up and roll over as the wing dips, stick forward, rudder, ailiron and your flying again.
-
You asked for an example, would you think this (http://real.xobix.ch/ramgen/sfdrs/ts/2005/TS_20082005-450k.rm?start=0:09:58.600&end=0:10:31.811) would have happened with AH2 FM in real life?
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
By rails I meant that the planes seem to follow changes in AOA very quickly.
I agree with Morpheus: I believe the behavior in AH to be correct and fully realistic. This is easy to observe in various ways. One is to go dive at the ground and pull out. Notice that the line of your flight is below where your nose is actually pointing (i.e., that there is substantial angle of attack). Another is to follow, say, a bomber around -- weave around, get on its tail, porpoise around a bit and look at what happens. Notice that your line of flight is not the same as where your nose is pointing (not by a lot). A third is to do some of this with view zoom turned up, and you will notice it even more because any angle of attack effect is visually magnified.
The only area I've where AH might not be fully realistic (by my observation -- not stating that I am right about this or that I have tested anything quantitatively) is in lack of drastically increased drag when your plane enters the buffet region as is approaches stall (not the buffet region before compressibility). Real planes generate more drag as you pull more g's. So does AH. Real planes stall when airflow completely separates off the top of the wing. So do planes in AH. However, flow separating off the top of the wings vs. angle of attack is a graded process -- it doesn't go from smooth flow over the wings to completely separated in a bimodal process. There is a graded region in between where airflow separates more and more (related to the ability to have a stall horn that kicks in a little, then a little more, and so on until it is finally full on and you are in a full stall). In that region (where the stall horn is on a little and the airplane isn't fully stalled yet), drag goes up even more than normal because the partial separation of airflow over the top of the wing generates turbulence off the top of the wing that greatly increases drag. If it worked this way in AH, people wouldn't want to fly the edge with the stall horn blaring to get maximum turn rate -- they'd want to fly just outside the stall horn making any noise, as that would be max lift/drag. Also, pulling right up to stall would perhaps slow you down faster than it does now in AH.
Other than this small, less-relevant, essoteric region of performance, I belive AH flight models are very realistic and good. They do a great job, I think.
-
I'm not saying it sucks, I'm just saying that there might be a gameplay concession here and there making this game easyer for beginners and the air combat in general more enjoyable.
If people would have the ability to enter irrecoverable spins easyer there'd be a monstrous amount of whines and the combat part difficulty would increase exponentially.
Currently it's extremely hard to do anything in an AH plane that would send you to an irrecoverable spin even if you're at 40ft high. You really have to try to achieve it. Take Spit XIV, fly it 100ft off the ground at 220mph. Pull full stick deflection to back and watch it snap-stall nice rounds going forward. At any time you wish you just release the stick and have ability to continue normal flight as if nothing happened.
I'm betting that nobody could try that real life and live to tell about it.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
You asked for an example, would you think this (http://real.xobix.ch/ramgen/sfdrs/ts/2005/TS_20082005-450k.rm?start=0:09:58.600&end=0:10:31.811) would have happened with AH2 FM in real life?
I dont have real media and im not going to install it. The bottom line is i've seen and been in and flown a plane that is stalling in real life, exactly as you described it in AH. The stalls, how they react, and what you do to get out of one is all very similar to one another. Can you completely model what its like in real life? Well, duh... No that's why they call it a simulation. It will never be perfect. I already said that. Actual flying is far too dynamic and complex with many variables to perfectly mirror on a computer. In theory, with mathematics you can get close. Which is what hitech did. I am really amazed actually how close it is to the real thing.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
I'm not saying it sucks, I'm just saying that there might be a gameplay concession here and there making this game easyer for beginners and the air combat in general more enjoyable.
If people would have the ability to enter irrecoverable spins easyer there'd be a monstrous amount of whines and the combat part difficulty would increase exponentially.
Currently it's extremely hard to do anything in an AH plane that would send you to an irrecoverable spin even if you're at 40ft high. You really have to try to achieve it. Take Spit XIV, fly it 100ft off the ground at 220mph. Pull full stick deflection to back and watch it snap-stall nice rounds going forward. At any time you wish you just release the stick and have ability to continue normal flight as if nothing happened.
I'm betting that nobody could try that real life and live to tell about it.
Are you flying with stall limiter on?
I can go off line right now and put a spit14 into a flat spin that god himself couldnt get out of.
-
Morph I don't use realplayer either, you can get a free plugin for 'media player classic' search for a 'realplayer alternative' from google.
I don't fly with stall limiter on. With the limiter on you can't make the SpitXIV snap stall at all :D
Dunno morph show me a film where you enter an unrecoverable stall at say 1000ft alt. Whatever I do I can recover either by pushing stick forward or just by ramming full throttle and stick input. I assume again that ramming full throttle in a SpitXIV at stall would not be a smart idea. AH2 goes back to 'rail mode' instead.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
You asked for an example, would you think this (http://real.xobix.ch/ramgen/sfdrs/ts/2005/TS_20082005-450k.rm?start=0:09:58.600&end=0:10:31.811) would have happened with AH2 FM in real life?
I've had things like that happen to me in AH.
-
Brooke are you saying that you entered a shallow turn, fell below stall speed and couldn't recover by firewalling the throttle and giving a bit of stick input? I can do it 10 out of 10 unless I'm full flaps inverted below stall speed.. i.e. really trying to get into trouble.
I doubt that the pilot in question was pushing the envelope in that airshow.
-
Last night in the CT i rolled a spit14 and then went to go eat dinner. Came back and i was at something like 40k. :eek:
I started screwing around to see what it could and couldnt do up there. I went to do a hamer head starting at 38k with plenty of speed. The plane rolled inverted (which was my fault) then went into a flat spin. It wasnt until 30k where I finnaly regained control. And I tried every trick in the book to bring it back to flying order.
I did the exact same thing at 500ft off the deck. Again it rolled over inverted then entered a flat spin right down to the deck.
I just went and filmed this film. I didnt get last night on film from the CT.
Watch the direction of the tail. At times im in a tail slide, then it enters a flat spin which is recoverable once, the last time there just is not enough room between me and the water to get out. Its too bad you cant see the controls move in the film viewer too.
http://www.furballunderground.com/misc/film83.ahf
Short of you actualy flying a plane, there really isnt much I can do or say to prove othewise to you. You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink.
Btw, when you watch the film, turn the trails on and watch it in external view. Pay close attention of the tail/nose, aoa, directional movement so on and so forth.
-
Hi Brooke:
Don't confuse our stall horn with a real one. It begins 4 deg. Prior to Max AOA.
It is realy dificult to give fead back riding the edge like in a real plane. Hence I use the stall horn to give you that feed back.
2nd if the High drag at the edge of stall was not close, then the stustained turn rates would have to be out of the realm of reality.
HiTech
-
Actually that film kinda proved my point. You had to cut throttle fully off and give a hard stick input in order to lose control of the plane. Then when you became inverted you throttled up only when your nose pointed up to the sky knowing that should you throttle pointing downwards you'd recover almost instantly. :)
I just tested similar movements offline and indeed if you pull vertical and do something incredibly stupid like chop throttle and push full nose down attitude in order to reduce speed to 0 you can momentarily lose control of the plane.
Even then it's fairly easy to regain controlled flight by playing with the throttle and rudder in order to get the nose pointing to the ground - at which point controlled flight is regained almost instantly. One would think that once all aileron input is lost the prop forces would throw the plane into a wild spin if and when you apply full throttle. The stunt pilots call the manouver 'crazy' if I recall right.
But I guess it's useless to argue about this now, this is only a game and the basic aim has never been to be a full simulation. The combat and the gameplay are at main focus.
It just makes me chuckle to see the die hard supporters making really wild claims about things that most likely aren't there. HT knows the best. :)
-
MrRiplEy :
Real planes I have departed during dog fights.
P51
RV8
Marchety.
The recovery of accelerated stall is very very close to the real thing. Infact I can't say that any thing is realy not like the real thing. I cant say that for every plane, simply because they are our best guess how they would react. Now if I had full stablitly and control diagrams on all planes we could match them.
As for AOA, it is there , funny how you think they are on rails, and other people complain about nose boune. And I can't say I have ever realy felt any lag from stick pull to G's espcialy at anything beyond the 2g stall speeds.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Actually that film kinda proved my point. You had to cut throttle fully off and give a hard stick input in order to lose control of the plane. Then when you became inverted you throttled up only when your nose pointed up to the sky knowing that should you throttle pointing downwards you'd recover almost instantly. :)
I just tested similar movements offline and indeed if you pull vertical and do something incredibly stupid like chop throttle and push full nose down attitude in order to reduce speed to 0 you can momentarily lose control of the plane.
Even then it's fairly easy to regain controlled flight by playing with the throttle and rudder in order to get the nose pointing to the ground - at which point controlled flight is regained almost instantly. One would think that once all aileron input is lost the prop forces would throw the plane into a wild spin if and when you apply full throttle. The stunt pilots call the manouver 'crazy' if I recall right.
But I guess it's useless to argue about this now, this is only a game and the basic aim has never been to be a full simulation. The combat and the gameplay are at main focus.
It just makes me chuckle to see the die hard supporters making really wild claims about things that most likely aren't there. HT knows the best. :)
Yes, but now you're talking about getting out of a stall as before you were talking about what a plane and how a plane reacts to stall's in aces high as compared to real life flying. And I am saying they are dam near identical.
You said they were on rails, they simply are not. Like I said before if you let go of the stick you'd simply remain in a flat spin right down to the ground. Now you're back peddling and saying this indeed is not the case. When you're prior posts stated other wise. Have you flown and entered a stall in real life? Have you gotten out of it?
Im sorry bud, but you really (I think) are confused.
This spit14 reacts to a tail slide basicly the same way a plane would in real life. Again, proving that they are not on rails and you do need to DO something to get them out of a stall. Remember, YOU said you didnt need to do anything to get out of a stall. And that' is just wrong no mater how you slice it.
http://www.furballunderground.com/misc/tailslide.ahf
when you watch the film, watch it from fixed mode with trails on again. It give the best view of whats going on with the plane.
-
HT: Well that kind of was what I was saying earlier. I assume that if AH was pushed for die-hard simulation it would take away from the fun of the combat for the majority of the players. I've played AH long enough to witness several different tunings of FM (which of course I need not tell you).
I know that you have stick time in a selection of planes which is beneficial to your job, no doubt. Have you been able to enter a flat spin for example? Or do the 'crazy' manouver where you pull up vertical with choped throttle untill your speed reduces to near zero followed by firewalling the throttle and sending the plane into a wild spin around all axles?
The crazy manouver is not possible in AH current FM although I'm not 100% sure if it was possible in real life with WW2 planes either.
Morph: as I said earlier the FM doesn't suck. It's probably quite close to reality. But my suspicion was that certain aspects were toned down for playability's sake. If you watched the film I made and thought logically, would a real plane respond to stick input like that doing 90mph and in an 90 degree angle to the ground? I'm betting that by pulling the stick a real plane could be easily pushed beyond controlled flight sending it rotating around the propeller and heading backwards given the extremely slow speed and the angle.
Or maybe I'm wrong..
-
I know that you have stick time in a selection of planes which is beneficial to your job, no doubt. Have you been able to enter a flat spin for example? Or do the 'crazy' manouver where you pull up vertical with choped throttle untill your speed reduces to near zero followed by firewalling the throttle and sending the plane into a wild spin around all axles?
What are you talking about?
Did you watch the film? Can you count for me how many axies the plane was rotating on? Also note the directional movement.
-
Morph if you've seen the 'crazy' you know what I'm talking about. In the manouver the pilot intentionally slows his plane to a point where no control has authority anymore. He then firewalls the throttle causing the momentum and the gyroscopic powers of the prop to throw the plane in a really crazy way. The plane is moved around only by prop forces. Essentially the plane becomes a helicopter without the stabilizer.
That momentum and gyro feel nearly non-existant in current AH FM. Or maybe the difference is the weight which would offset the effect. Even a spit is way heavyer than the russian aerobatics planes I've seen perform it.
-
You cannot relate a russian areobatics plane to a war bird. They are two completely different animals.
Ones made to go straight and fast and the other is meant to be thrown about in ever way posible. Its the way the plane is designed. Compareing as if they are similar or SHOULD be is confusing design.
And when an areobatic pilot does put his plane into a gyro motion such as your speaking of, it isnt "crazy" it is completly controled. Which your getting confused here i think. Controlled stalls and uncontrolled stalls. And Spins.
-
ROFL of course its controlled, the movement is called crazy because it looks like that.
I just did some more testing and I was able to pull a crazy of some sort in f4u1. The effect was really mild but it was there anyway.
What I did was dive down to about 300mph. I pulled straight vertical and chopped throttle untill my speed indicator said 0. All the time I tried to remain perfectly vertical.
When the speed reduced to zero I punched maximum power and released all controls.. The end result was a 'crazy' although much more slower in effect. Just like the real plane I pulled lazily high and right and followed into revolutions around the axle. The crazy only continued for a couple of revolutions after which the plane inherently stabilized.
So I have to say the elements are there, WTG HT. But only he knows if concious concessions had to be made for gameplays sake. ;)
-
http://www.furballunderground.com/misc/tailslide1.ahf
Again, you're trying to compare two different animals here Rip. One made for areobatics and nother made to go straight and fast.
Its like taking a 6 second dragster and putting it up against a Porsche on a road course.
-
just a small point here, get in a turnfight in mozzie with flaps out, we'll see who is on rails lol
another point, I often do almost HO deflection shots with just pulling hard my stick and pushing it fast, and the plane rotates for a short time allowing me to throw some bullets, but keeps going where it was going, therefore avoiding collision (don't try this at home kids )
-
Originally posted by Central
One solution that was brought up was, just adding the fuel leak between the ranges of 18k through 30k. We'd be able to distinguish a box formation of bombers opposed to 4 fighters.
Why do some people think that a bomber's engine would produce a contrail, but a fighter's engine would not?
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Brooke are you saying that you entered a shallow turn, fell below stall speed and couldn't recover by firewalling the throttle and giving a bit of stick input? I can do it 10 out of 10 unless I'm full flaps inverted below stall speed.. i.e. really trying to get into trouble.
You are talking about two things. First, you said that you thought the flight dynamics of AH was off because the planes didn't seem to handle angle of attack correctly. I disagreed and replied as to how to be sure, in the game, of observing what seems to me to be perfectly realistic angle-of-attack behavior.
Second, you showed a Spit enter a spin at low speed and low altitude and crash before it could recover. I told you that I've done that in AH on occasion.
True, usually stalls in AH are no problem. But I've gotten into spins at times in AH that I couldn't recover from in time (i.e., before ground hits me), and once in a very great while into a spin that takes me 10k or more of altitude to recover from. I wasn't doing anything too bizarre at those times either. What happens after a stall depends on a lot of things (power setting, airspeed, what rates of movement are on the various axes, aircraft attitutde, etc.). There are times in AH that you can enter a spin and not be able to get out of it in 500 ft, even though spins aren't usually a problem.
Also, like some of the others posting here (Morpheus and HiTech), I've flown real planes, at times in aerobatics, spins, slow flight, etc. I haven't flown WWII aircraft -- only Cessnas and once a SIAI Marchetti SF260. I find AH to have excellent flight modelling by my experience. Let me tell you that, if you are good at air combat in AH, you will likely be good at air combat in a Marchetti.
One thing to keep in mind is that behavior right near stall is a highly nonlinear dynamical situation. It is a much more difficult realm to model, and there is much less actual flight-test data on it (especially for things like spins).
Even different planes of the same model can have somewhat different behaviors. I flew a Cessna 152 once that, unlike all other 152's I ever flew, had pretty bad slow-flight behavior. Slow flight is where you get on the back side of the power curve. You slow down to near stall, increasing angle of attack, then keep adding throttle to keep from descending. You end up with high power, with your plane mushing through the air at a very low speed. All the other 152's I flew did this without trouble. If they started to stall, it would mush gradually into the stall and stay flying straight ahead. One 152 I flew, though, was obviously not as aerodynamically balanced. It would get near the region where others would still be fine, then suddenly shudder and stall off quickly to the left, entering a spin -- not much warning, you just had to do a normal spin recovery. And even in that Cessna 152 (a paper kite compared to a Spitfire), that process used up probably more than 500 ft.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if a rebuilt WWII airplane had some stall behavior that would be much less forgiving than what is typical of its model.
So, to summarize, I think AH's angle-of-attack modelling is fine. I think it's stall modelling is fine. I see no disparity between (1) some real-life Spitfire stalling out in a turn to the left at low speed and low altitude, entering a spin, and not being able to stop it before losing 500 ft. of altitude and (2) AH's stall/spin model.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Hi Brooke:
Don't confuse our stall horn with a real one. It begins 4 deg. Prior to Max AOA.
It is realy dificult to give fead back riding the edge like in a real plane. Hence I use the stall horn to give you that feed back.
2nd if the High drag at the edge of stall was not close, then the stustained turn rates would have to be out of the realm of reality.
HiTech
Howdy, HT. I think the way the stall horn works in AH is excellent for giving people a feel for the edge (like in the Marchetti using the amout of buffet to judge the edge). As for high drag near stall -- thanks for that info.
-
Brooke you or nobody else answered my question about the film. It was: Do you think anyone could repeat that manouver with a real aeroplane? As far as I see it a real aeroplane would not have enough stick authority in that situation to be able to turn anywhere. Also note I never went into an uncontrollable spin, my speed and altitude just finally droped enough for the wing to clip ground.
I turned in 360 degree circles at near stall speed yanking the stick hard at 50 or so feet while doing it. I can't believe a real plane would give that sharp stick response at that speed and/or angle let alone stay in controlled flight. Remember there were several factors speaking towards this: Near or stall speed. Violent stick movements at stall speed. Full throttle at stall speed. 90 degree to the ground while turning at stall speed. Hard rudder input in order to remain level while doing full throttle, 90 degree towards to the ground, stall speed 360 degree turn. Even though the basics in the FM are right they must be toned down - if they were identical to actual flight response it would take an absolute retard to be able to crash a vintage fighter in landing. Blow an engine in P38 while landing - no problem. Easily controlled flight. Yet not so long ago an experienced pilot went into a spin and died as a result.
Please, I'm not buying it. AH must be in the category 'close to true, simplified enough for beginners'.
-
Originally posted by OttoJ
Why do some people think that a bomber's engine would produce a contrail, but a fighter's engine would not?
Bombers would leave a much larger signature and be spotted easyer though. That being said contrails would not serve the function they had in real life because of our inflight radar and high dot distance. No high-alt plane can practically escape unseen.
-
Nor could they in WWII over Britain in 1940-41 and the Reich in 1943-45.
And how exactly would you distinguish a flight of P-38's from say a flight of B-26's? And a single fighter engine running on a rich mixture might very well produce more exhaust vapor than two bomber engines running lean. The radial engined P-47 would probably produce twice the amount of vapor than a Merlin, given its much larger displacement. There are many variables.
-
MrRiplEy[H] :
`If you compare real guncam video to AH video the first thing you'll notice is how real planes first change AOA and then start turning as the aerodynamic forces overcome the kinetic energy. In AH we don't have such an effect as far as I see it, the planes fly 'on rails'.
Morpheus:
No they absolutely do not. They are as close to the real thing as you can get without actually getting into a REAL plane.
I think both of these statements are a bit overly bold, but both have some truth, Ah's fm isnt the best i have flown in the sim world but its the best in the "entertainment aircombat" genre imho.
I have had the pleasure of flying a 1942 AT-19 Reliant "Gullwing" and the first thing i noticed when flying it was the amount of slip these old planes had, i find ah to be lacking compaired to RL and to other sims from what i can see and "feel" (as much as you can in a sim atleast). I never fly with combat trim and such, but when lining up a shot it seems too easy, i expect to be sliding around a bit more.
I also find the feedback of pulling back on the stick and seeing a change in AOA a bit fast, as MrRiplEy[H] was stating, it feels just a bit too responsive, but this may be a conciouse game interface issue.
Ah fm coding is great, and it does do its job well withought stomping on too many historical numbers, there are quite a few places it can grow FM realism wise and i have no doubt it will with some good R&D, as well as time.
-
Yes my choice of words were on the hard side when I said 'on rails'. There was a marked improvement not so long ago in the FM in this exact area.
I remember how much adjustment was needed when the FM changed.
Don't take me wrong, I love AH and I think it's the best product on the market. HT has done an awesome job - but he also has to think marketing and wide playerbase. Which is why we lack engine controls, having to turn 10 switches just to fly etc.
Gameplay concessions in order to have fun doing combat.
-
I also find the feedback of pulling back on the stick and seeing a change in AOA a bit fast, as MrRiplEy[H] was stating, it feels just a bit too responsive, but this may be a conciouse game interface issue.
Im no expert of flying by any means. But I have flown and Im lucky enough to know a guy like Mars01 who gives me the chance to fly on a fairly regular basis in his own planes.
The responsiveness to me between both AH and a real plane does feel similar. But again, your talking about a aerobatic plane and aww2 fighter, two very different birds which some had hydraulic asist, and others did not, some weighed as much as a school bus, others a honda civic. At speed, the responsiveness seems similar, they're right there. When at stall speed the lack of response is there, just like in a real plane.
SHort of MrRip, getting into a real plane and actually flying I cant say much more. I can but I just dont want to.
-
MrRiplEy[H]:
We do not alter flight dynamics in any for game play consesions.
That is a totaly different item than switch manigment.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
MrRiplEy :
Real planes I have departed during dog fights.
[SIZE=8]P51[/SIZE]
RV8
Marchety.
HiTech
Did i mention i hate you?:furious
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
Actually that's exactly what it is.
The wings of an airplane cause a drop in air pressure in the vicinity of the wing (this is partly what allows a plane to fly). This drop in air pressure brings with it a drop in temperature, which can cause water to condense out of the air and form a contrail.
The do not last as long as contrails from engine exhaust because the drop in temperature is not as extreme.
Ah you're right! Thanks Morpheus
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Brooke you or nobody else answered my question about the film. It was: Do you think anyone could repeat that manouver with a real aeroplane? As far as I see it a real aeroplane would not have enough stick authority in that situation to be able to turn anywhere. Also note I never went into an uncontrollable spin, my speed and altitude just finally droped enough for the wing to clip ground.
I turned in 360 degree circles at near stall speed yanking the stick hard at 50 or so feet while doing it. I can't believe a real plane would give that sharp stick response at that speed and/or angle let alone stay in controlled flight. Remember there were several factors speaking towards this: Near or stall speed. Violent stick movements at stall speed. Full throttle at stall speed. 90 degree to the ground while turning at stall speed. Hard rudder input in order to remain level while doing full throttle, 90 degree towards to the ground, stall speed 360 degree turn.
I'll have to disagree with you here. It seems like most of your arguments are based on how you 'feel' the actual airplane should behave in those regimes.
To summarize:
-you feel that the actual airplane at low speeds and high power settings will not be able to handle as well as it does in AH.
-you feel that things like stall/spin recoveries are too easy in AH.
-you feel the the asymmetric forces of flight due to the prop (slipstream, torque, P-factor, and gyroscopic precession) are toned down in AH.
Keep in mind that things like sideslip and angle of attack are not as apparent in simulated environments because most of what you perceive as uncoordinated flight in real life comes from the seat of your pants. So unless you have a close eye on the turn coordinator or angle of attack indicator, it's very unlikely that you'll notice their presence. Also, note that the angle of attack is not the flight path angle. Just because your nose bounces up almost instantaneously when you yank the stick back, it doesn't necessarily mean that the airplane flight path is in the same direction as your nose. What happens isn real life (and in AH too) is first, the nose comes up and the angle of attack spikes; here, your airplane keeps moving in its original direction; second, because of the increase in lift, the airplane gradually starts accelerating upward; as this happens, the airplane flight path gradually 'catches up' to the direction of the nose, and the angle of attack settles back to its original unperturbed state (more or less).
My point is this: in AH, there's really no way of knowing if this is what's really happening because again, you can't feel the g-forces like you can in real life. But considering that this is one of the fundamentals of flight dynamics, I see no reason why they wouldn't model it this way. My bet is that AH models all the forces and moments (due to aerodynamics, gravity, and the engine), assumes very accurate mass and moment characteristics for each planes, and integrates the equations of motions to calculate the trajectory and position. There's no other way you can make it this realistic. How do I know it's realistic? Call it intuition; call it blind faith.
Also, you say that real life pilots wouldn't dare do these kinds of low-alt maneuvers. Damn right! Just because I can do some slow uncoordinated flights at tree-top level in AH, it doesn't mean I'll be willing to risk my life with a real airplane. What we consider to be pretty possible in AH (~95% success rate) is no where close to being good enough in real life. If you had a 5% chance of crashing and dying in a plane tomorrow, would you go flying? I wouln't. The difference isn't in the flight realism; it's in what you as an AH pilot and a real life pilot with a wife and two kids perceive to be acceptable levels of risk.
So there you have it. AH is as real as it gets for all practical purposes -- that is, for 99.999% of the population. The remaining 0.001% are the ones that have flown these things for a living. But it's definitely not you or me.
-
Also, you say that real life pilots wouldn't dare do these kinds of low-alt maneuvers.
There is a very good reason they call flying (aerobatics) the worlds most dangerous sport.
Not all REAL LIFE pilots wouldnt dare.
CLICK ME (http://www.10374.com/3dbatix/videos/tucker/seantucker2.wmv)
You can hear him talking over the radio towards the middle part of the film if you listen.
-
Totally unrealistic flight model. No Cessna 150 could do that.
I also think the weight isn't modeled correctly. You need two 20mm cannon and two .50 M2 machine guns plus a full load of ammo, some armor plate, O2 tanks, and enough fuel for an effective combat range and then see how it flys. I'm sure its aerobatic capabilities will be greatly reduced compared to how a real aircraft flys. :rofl
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Brooke you or nobody else answered my question about the film. It was: Do you think anyone could repeat that manouver with a real aeroplane?
Yes.
Please, I'm not buying it. AH must be in the category 'close to true, simplified enough for beginners'.
You're not buying it, but you're making claims about realism of flight models based on no real-life flight testing of your own and no study of the physics or math of flight dynamics. I'd say close to true, simplified where required by limits of technology and modelling, but not simplified in its flight model for beginners.
-
I'd say close to true, simplified where required by limits of technology and modelling
alas the limits of the table based fm. Im amazed that its still in use, its easier and faster to make than a true phisics based fm but its got alot less potential.
-
Originally posted by eilif
alas the limits of the table based fm. Im amazed that its still in use, its easier and faster to make than a true phisics based fm but its got alot less potential.
And tell me exatly how you would have even an incline of knowledge on the subject. Nore for that mater what the term "Table based model is", or even why and when tables are used and are not. And the effect of said tables.
Some days darts get under my skin. especialy when some people are "Stuck on stupid." or my version "Clueless dolts."
HiTech
-
so...
are we getting vapor trails to fighters making ho-G manuvers?
:D
-
HT comes out swinging! :aok
-
OttoJ:
I think you clearly missed the point.... A box formation of bombers (in) AH would be 4 contrails (with) all the same spacing inbetween them. Fighters, they obviously are not going to fly in formation and would (not) look like the contrails of that of a box formation.
Now, at a distance i can distinguish:
1. Im a bomber - "ok, they're other bombers @ 28k, no threat."
2. " " - "They're four fighters @28k, I need to turn tail and run."
3. I'm a fighter - "They're bombers @ 28k, I dont want to waste my time or i do want to waste time flying up to them."
4. " " - "They're fighters @28k, I'm going to get jumped by 4 alt-monkeys."
never did i say a fighter would not create a contrail, but would make it easier to set up my attack or retreat.
Originally posted by OttoJ
Why do some people think that a bomber's engine would produce a contrail, but a fighter's engine would not?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Central
One solution that was brought up was, just adding the fuel leak between the ranges of 18k through 30k. We'd be able to distinguish a box formation of bombers opposed to 4 fighters.
-
We are generating our own vapor trails as the dogfight over realism evolves. :)
"Table based"? "True physics-based flight model"?
Tables have nothing whatsoever to do with level of modelling and whether or not they are physically realistic. Tables are nothing more than functions, and they are the basis of how most nonlinear functions are implemented on a digital computer. Whether you make a table to implement, say, f(x) = exp(-a*t) * sin(w*t) or call the microprocessor's native functions (which are eventually table based) has little relevance as to how physically realistic the model is. This is just an implementation choice.
Based on how planes in AH handle, I already know that it is a physically realistic model. Based on the level of physical realism, I would be willing to bet that the model is quite sophisticated and already a "true physics-based" flight model.
Eilif, what multiplayer air-combat sim out there has a better flight model than AH in your opinion?
-
First of all, fighter plane engines leave less of a contrail than bombers for a number of reasons. 1, one engine produces a lot less heat than 4 engines in proximity. 2, Becuase there isn't another heat source in proximity to the fighter engine, heat despersion happens faster. 3, exhaust systems on fighters are designed to impede as little as possible on the planes performance. Not so much consideration for a bombers engine. For example most fighter engine exhaust is broken up into multiple small exhaust outlets whereas bomber engines are generally 1 or 2 ginormous pipes.
As for the FM, sure there are some things lacking from real life, but chaos therory dictates than in order to make it "real" there would a ton of variables that your computer simple could not handle. There's a reason why armed forces flight simulators are in warehouses powered by computing systems bigger than your house.
-
That's why nobody's asking for a game which can compute a high probability out of "which direction would the rain drop roll down if it hit my Bf109 windshield".
All we want is some slight, aesthetic, vapor trail at the tips of the wings.
-
Ah.. contrails have nothing whatsoever to do with heat produced by a power plant. A contrail is water vapor that has condensed to form small water droplets. These droplets scatter light- that's why you see the trail. Contrails are essentially just clouds- and indeed, they can seed and grow into big clouds. They form because all fuels used in either internal combustion or turbine engines contain hydrogen which burns to form H2O, ie water. The water formed from combustion can stay as invisible vapor at lower altitudes because the air is warm enough to keep it vapor. At higher altitudes the surrounding air is cold and when some if it mixes with the exhaust plume it cools the water vapor which condenses to form droplets, ie the contrail. Look closely, the contrail starts behind the engine a distance because the surrounding air takes time to mix in and cool the plume below a critical temperature. So at high altitude all aircraft, even the Me-163 rocket plane, which burns a mixture of hydrazine and methanol, will create contrails. The size and persistance of the contrails would be more a function of meterological conditions than the type of plane.
Contrails that form at low altitude during high G maneuvers are almost the same thing, but not quite. They only occur in very humid conditions where the surrounding air is almost saturated with water vapor. When the plane does a high G maneuver there are regions above the wing of particularly low pressure. This low pressure air can't hold as much water vapor, mostly because expansion causes a temperature drop, so some of the water vapor in the air condenses out as droplets which show up like a cloud. If you are sitting near the wing on an airliner during takeoff or landing, ie high lift configurations that lead to particularly low pressure above the wing, you can see these contrails during very humid weather.
-
Im not going to dig myself a hole here, (which is something im rather natural at) and starting a big arguement over this on an official aces high board is a great way to do that, and since i have high hopes with the future of HTCs products i dont think it would be a great idea to work any harder to get on his bad side.
alas the limits of the table based fm. Im amazed that its still in use, its easier and faster to make than a true phisics based fm but its got alot less potential.
famouse last words eh? ended up sounding kind of pompouse, Some days darts get under my skin. especialy when some people are "Stuck on stupid." or my version "Clueless dolts."
was a fitting reply.
i cant give you a dicitionary example of what i was saying, if there even is one, so ill just mention the sims that use this "level of fidelity".
The kind of flight model that x plane and Targetware use is the FM i am refering too. Im not saying these games are better games, im just saying they have more realistic/detailed/anal/flight models because thats what they do, they are sims not games, and targetware is the only one that has multiplayer air combat, which is still in beta and has alot of work to be done before it can go gold. These sims and the like are not fun for most people because they are not meant to be in the way aces high is, they are just realistic which you have to take with a grain of salt. Fun vs Science.
I dont belive aces high has the most "realistic" "detailed" flight model in the multi player air combat genre, this doesnt mean i think its inacurate, what it does it does right in terms of fm. The succes of aces high is because its fun, and as long as it is, there is no point in comparing/defending it evangelicly to sims in terms of realism, sometimes i forget this, i think many of us do, and after dorking around in sims and coming onto this forum, hearing people bicker about realism its hard not to intergect.
AH is what it is, and many are paying money to play it, which says alot for the passionate talented people making it work considering the odd niche genre it fills.
anyway
:noid
-
715, the heat allows more water vapor (humidity). The more water vapor the more noticable the contrail. Back to meteorology school for you. :p
-
I dont belive aces high has the most "realistic" "detailed" flight model in the multi player air combat genre
Give names I want to test !
-
im just saying they have more realistic/detailed/anal/flight models
You are basicly bying into there marketing hype.
I wrote My first "what you are calling physics base" model about 18 years ago. It was the first model I had ever flown that would snap roll and spin right from the basic flight dynamics. A better term would be "6 axis model" then Physics based, but that was where your term "Table Based" and "Physics based" model stemed from.
Now I want you to back your statement up with facts. Because first off you havn't a clue of how we do modeling, because I do not belive we have ever published how we do the details.
Pick a plane that both us and targetware and xplane model and that real data is readily availabl ( If targetware has a P51D would be a great choice). Then do some detail testing.
Test the following. Best climb rates at all altitudes.
Best Speed at all altitudes.
Fuel consumptions at all alititudes and multiple throttle settings.
Sustainted turn rates.
Stall Speeds.
Roll rates at different speeds.
After you have run these test in both sims, come back to me and tell me which model is more acurate.
HiTech
-
HiTech......ignore. Probably few have a clue to write code let alone actualy fly an aircraft that has maneuverablilty capabilities higher then the aircraft they are using in Aces High.
Do what I do when someone who is not trained in the field and without the expertise to suggest something in your Professional field. I smile......shake my head and walk away.
-
I have never flown a real warbird, closest I've come is an AT6 and all I could do was two loops and a dozen barrel-rolls (before I was too discombobulated to see the horizon). I have a few dozen hours in high wing Cessnas and 2 hours in a PT30 (low-wing monoplane open-cockpit trainer, not sure of the designation).
The only thing I find different from sitting in a real pit versus my desk at home is the wandering nose and imprecise ball, I can readilly beleive that in a 400mph fighter this might be lessened than in the 90mph Cessna 152. In RL making a perfectly coordinated 180 degree turn is nearly impossible, but I can do it easily in AH. I do not think this has as much if anything at all to do with the FM, I'm guessing it has more to do with atmosphereic modeling or the lack thereof.
BTW...that Spit video, the realplayer one, is simply horrific:(
-
I'm guessing it has more to do with atmosphereic modeling
I never piloted a real plane (got 3/10 a both eyes and am color blind) but landings and slow maneuvers seems too easy or "too stable", the wind is too constant IMO. Some strong wind rafales could be fun and more realistic :)
Weather is what we miss in AH, rain, snow, etc...I think its the next big step towards true happiness. I presume HT is working on this, trying settings on the MA cause sometimes you see some changes :) .I really liked the fog he set on MA for 15mins once, giving british atmosphere to the map, hiding a bit low alt icons wich is great, and improved a LOT fps.
It could be nice to see the "atmospheres" changing during day and location, even if the graphics aren't the top, but just to give the impression of actual travelling. In AH2 you do hundreds of miles and it feels like exactly the same place :/ and if we could have trails too....imagine the immersion :) Looking thru the tower window on a smogy morning, I look up and and I see 20 white trails high in the sky : "that must be a german raid"....
-
this here is what we in the industry like to call "table based modeling"
(http://www.nps.gov/usar/scrs/fig310.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Yes they would be cool but I'd guess most would not want this as it is an unnecessary drain on frame rates.
MSFS2004 has vapor trails and the hit on frame rates is nill.
-
Originally posted by JB42
715, the heat allows more water vapor (humidity). The more water vapor the more noticable the contrail. Back to meteorology school for you. :p
Actually, it's back to meteorology school for you, as 715 has it right. Here's a link for more explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail
-
Brooke, nice of you to stop on the first page. Do a little link following and you get into humidities effect on contrail formation. Relative humidty is based on air temp. and its capacity to hold moisture. thanks.
The atmosphere contains water (which is why (Water falling in drops from vapor condensed in the atmosphere) rain occurs) and although most aero-engines are thought of as running on a fuel such as petrol/ (A volatile flammable mixture of hydrocarbons (hexane and heptane and octane etc.) derived from petroleum; used mainly as a fuel in internal-combustion engines) gasoline (piston engines) or paraffin/ (A flammable hydrocarbon oil used as fuel in lamps and heaters) kerosene (jet engines) they actually use a mixture of fuel and air, the air being taken from the atmosphere. This air contains moisture in the form of water-vapour, which passes through the engine and is heated in the cylinders/combustion-chambers and emerges as superheated (Water at boiling temperature diffused in the atmosphere) steam in the exhaust. For every gallon of fuel burnt, approximately one gallon of water (steam) is produced, depending on the fuel/air ratio. At high altitudes this steam emerges from the exhaust into a freezing environment, (as altitude increases, the atmospheric temperature drops) which lowers the temperature of the steam until each individual droplet freezes into tiny ice crystal
-
yah, what Kweassa said! fighters wing tips!!!!! :) and a little from bombers ... what ever makes them on bombers! just a little :) nothing else matters in this thread but vapor trails!!!!! nothing! :mad: gimme a "V" , gimme a "A" , gimme a "P" , gimme a "O" , gimme a "R" Trrailllss! lol just gimme!
-
high aoa vapor trails are nice for keeping a good feel for what your plane is doing as a visual cue, and what your enemy plane is doing, you can tell easy that they are pulling a break turn ectra.
-
Originally posted by tactic
yah, what Kweassa said! fighters wing tips!!!!! :) and a little from bombers ... what ever makes them on bombers! just a little :) nothing else matters in this thread but vapor trails!!!!! nothing! :mad: gimme a "V" , gimme a "A" , gimme a "P" , gimme a "O" , gimme a "R" Trrailllss! lol just gimme!
yeah, what he ^^^ said!
and yes, MSFS2004 does have "vapor trails" vissible, but those ARE dependant on your display settings and weather settings (lets face it, some vid cards, even the best ones, just won't cut it with all kinds of clutter).
Also, those "vapor trails" are mostly from aircraft at BIG ALT, flying a steady heading and speed, not in a plane yankin and bankin at 8k.
-
IL2/FB/AEP/PF has both types of trails. All engines leave them at high alt, and with high G moves the wingtips will create readilly visible trails. No discernable FR hit on my rig with either.
-
yup they getm yanking and banking at 8 k, I've got some videos of wwII and vietnam prop planes ripping in on ground tragets and sure enough vapor trails comming off there wings.
Hell when I'm in my 71 340 duster and I floor the son- o- bioch and push that little Nitrous button, then I put my hand out the window, guess what?... you got it!!! vapor trails come off my hand. :eek: lmao! ... No freaking f15 or any other plane got watermelon on me!! lol!!! Mopar ya know :)
-
Originally posted by JB42
Brooke, nice of you to stop on the first page. Do a little link following and you get into humidities effect on contrail formation.
I gave you a reference to the whole thing, not just the first page.
You implied that 715 was wrong in his analysis when in fact he is correct. The engine contrails are because the engines are giving off water vapor (from the combustion process), which when ejected into cold atmosphere forms contrails. That is exactly what 715 said, it is exactly what the reference I gave said, it is exactly what physics says should happen, and it is not what you said in your message where you told 715 he didn't know what he was talking about.
You said, "715, the heat allows more water vapor (humidity). The more water vapor the more noticable the contrail. Back to meteorology school for you." Yes, higher temperature air will hold more moisture, but that is at most a point that is tangential and relatively unimportant compared to the main cause -- injection of water vapor from the combustion process -- which you completely miss in your expalantion.
If you had a nuclear powered aircraft, your exhaust would be plenty hot, but there would be no injection of water vapor and no engine contrails. If you just injected water vapor without raising the outlet temperature above ambient, you would make contrails. Thus, temperture of the exhaust is not the thing -- injection of the water vapor is the thing, which is what 715 said.
-
No, 715 said heat had nothing to do with it, when in fact it has almost everyting to do with it. Fighter engine exhaust is broken into x amout of manifold outtakes. This causes the moisture in the exhust to come down in temp thus leaving a less defined contrail and more just adding moisture to the air. Bomber engines aren't so much. The exhuast is still super heated and with 2-4 engines in close proximity, produces a much more visable contrail.
Another factor is the reason the moisture needs to be super-heated. All exhaust has moisture in it. So why does super- heated exhaust cause a more noticable contrail when all moisture for the most part will freeze up there? Because in order for the moisture to become super-heated, the exhuast has to be super hot. This allows more super-heated moisture PPM and thus creating a more noticable contrail.
-
Originally posted by JB42
No, 715 said heat had nothing to do with it, when in fact it has almost everyting to do with it.
715 is right -- it is due to moisture from the combustion process, not heat. Inject moisture, you get engine contrails, regardless of heat of the engine. Don't inject moisture, you don't get engine contrails, regardless of the heat of the engine. The more moisture injected, the more the engine contrail. The reason engine heat doesn't matter is that, shortly after it is ejected, the moisture is at ambient temperature regardless. The condensate that results doesn't care (or know) if it came from a hotter engine originally or a less-hot engine originally. The equations covering this contain only ambient conditions and amount of water vapor -- the heat of the vapor at some point in the past isn't in them.
B-17 and B-24's with their 4 engines give off 4 engine contrails. P-47's and P-51's with their 1 engine give off 1 engine contrail. That's the source of differing size of contrails (that and how much fuel/time is burned per engine), not engine heat.
Here is a picture of bomber contrails, 1 per engine:
(http://www.reese-457th.org/flight7.jpg)
Here is a picture of bombers and fighters with contrails, 1 per engine.
(http://www.reese-457th.org/colpic.jpg)
-
Sorry for posting off topic, however its hard to believe that there arent at least *some* of those so called "gameplay concessions". In AcesHigh, Targetware or X-plane.
I cant believe that in real life a Spitfire, (or whatever) could do a 180deg flat turn after a co-level HO merge and stay on the tail of a 350mph TAS flying 109 (or whatever) ... and dont talk to me about lag.
I cant believe it was so easy to land or take off with those heavy, super powered, torque monsters, instable (what else?) fighter planes.
Energy management concessions? I really dont know .... it is too easy, anyway.
That said, I enjoy playing AH since 1999. I tried TW and the beautiful Target Tobruk data pack (plenty of italian fighters and bombers never seen before in any sim), but I still prefer AH2.
-
Originally posted by tactic
yup they getm yanking and banking at 8 k, I've got some videos of wwII and vietnam prop planes ripping in on ground tragets and sure enough vapor trails comming off there wings.
Hell when I'm in my 71 340 duster and I floor the son- o- bioch and push that little Nitrous button, then I put my hand out the window, guess what?... you got it!!! vapor trails come off my hand. :eek: lmao! ... No freaking f15 or any other plane got watermelon on me!! lol!!! Mopar ya know :)
FOKKER OFF!
Nah bro, I was talking about MSFS2004, not IRL ! IRL it all depends on ur Alt, speed, AOA, temp and relative humidity!
At least you got a respectable machine,:aok (DOES IT HAVE THE SIX PACK?) and not somthin Found On Road DEAD! :rofl
PS, How the sqaudies doin? I'll be back in the MA, soon (if RacerX, and the crew will still have me, and "D" hasn't run ya'll into dust)!
Did I give you my new e-mail addy? It's in my profile ,pass it RX & crew if ya would!
-
Originally posted by gatt
I cant believe it was so easy to land or take off with those heavy, super powered, torque monsters, instable (what else?) fighter planes.
I believe toward the end of the war some of the German and Japanese pilots had a little as 9 hours training to take off and land those heavy, super powered, torque monsters..
Fllying a plane isn't that hard. Fighting it is another story. After all it IS designed to take off and land.
-
I was chasing a Typhoon at high speed in the Main Arena last Sunday. As I got close, he pulled lots of g's -- and I saw vapor trails off his wingtips. Unless I was seeing things, HTC has put in this feature request.
Has anyone else noticed or seen this yet?
-
You're seeing things :)
You put the crack in the pipe and the vodka in the IV bag...not vise versa. If you swap them...things like that will happen.
-
I'm pretty sure I've seen em too flying fast in an F4U-4 and pulling Gs. I just didn't want to be the first to admit I smoke too much crack :)
Boozer
-
After reading several of these post I do suggest and I say this with the utmost respect that this board needs a spell checker. :aok
-
Nope.