Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Nemeth on May 22, 2006, 03:36:33 PM
-
I was talking to some people last week in H2H bout drop tanks.
First of all, why dont they do any damage in AH? Should they not atleast damage plane or ground vehicle (excluding tanks) or make them explode?
Second, why does a full drop tank fall as slow was a empty one?
Physics says that objects the same size but different mass should fall at different speeds in the same medium.
This would be a good change to see in the future, or atlest i think.
(i was just to lazy to see if there were any other threads in the fourm of the same topic)
-
I have a question thats related to this topic. Ive heard it from many many people for years now that they wish for DTs to explode on impact. Now my question is that when a DT is dropped with fuel in it, what would make it explode? Blunt force?
-
"Second, why does a full drop tank fall as slow was a empty one?
Physics says that objects the same size but different mass should fall at different speeds in the same medium."
Gee, that kinda contradicts everything I've heard about gravity. It IS a constant, you know. What might change is the terminal velocity for an empty tank, but the initial drop would be the same.
-
objects the same size but different mass should fall at different speeds in the same medium.
How does it contradict anything bout gravity?
(and i was talking bout in AH)
Thats pretty much what i was saying, DT's should have a damage factor, they dont nessarily explode, the gas catches fire and keeps going in the same direction, unlike a bomb that when it explodes it pushes everything away from it in all directions.
-
Originally posted by Nemeth
Second, why does a full drop tank fall as slow was a empty one?
Physics says that objects the same size but different mass should fall at different speeds in the same medium.
Kinda NOT what physics has taught since, oh, since Galileo published his thought experiments in the 1500's!!
You're making the same mistake Aristotle did in ancient times....so here's a little current events stuff to help you catch up :lol
This site explains the physics concept you missed (http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gal_accn96.htm)
This site uses Flash animation to explain the experiments (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/galileo/experiments.html)
J/K
-
A falling body accelerates uniformly: it picks up equal amounts of speed in equal time intervals, so that, if it falls from rest, it is moving twice as fast after two seconds as it was moving after one second, and moving three times as fast after three seconds as it was after one second.
In other words, a heavier object accelerates faster than a lighter object.
-
"in a medium" is a key phrase.
acceleration due to gravity in a medium is a function of shape & density
-
thats why in my original post i put in the same medium because if they were in two different mediums the gravity can act differently and the density of the medium will be different
-
I've seen full drop tanks punched off F4s twice while in the Air Force. Both times they failed to explode or catch fire. Just because they have fuel does not mean they are going to explode or catch fire , even with a rupture.
Besides they were put in the sim to be fuel not weapons.:)
-
Two stories. One, a flight of P-38s find a Japaneese cargo ship. They have no bombs, so they buzz the ship and release their drop tanks on the deck. One 38 incidently buzzed to close and caught his wing on an antenni or something, was damaged but flyable. The 38's extended reversed, and ignited the fuel with a straffing run. The ship burned into the night, and was confirmed sunk early that AM by Navy observers.
Next Yeager, and his wingman were short timers, and opted to do a patrol flight rather than go on an escort mission with their unit. The flight was uneventfull. Out of boredom they released thier drop tanks on the side of a mountain, and tried to ignite them with tracers to no avail. Meanwhile they missed out on like the single highest scoring day for their unit.
My question is how exactly do you model that, and how is that usefull to the game?
-
Humm, good question bout the modeling... im not the artist... so im useless on that, but i can answer how it is usefull thou...
you can go longer distances, drop the DT bout 1/2 - 1/4 full and damage somthin in the process. That usefull enough four you?? i know it is for me
-
Originally posted by Nemeth
A falling body accelerates uniformly: it picks up equal amounts of speed in equal time intervals, so that, if it falls from rest, it is moving twice as fast after two seconds as it was moving after one second, and moving three times as fast after three seconds as it was after one second.
In other words, a heavier object accelerates faster than a lighter object.
Thats just not true....since a heavier object has more inertia as well.
Acceleration is a CONSTANT....and The acceleration due to gravity denoted g (also gee, g-force or g-load) is a non-SI unit of acceleration defined as exactly 9.80665 m/sē, which is approximately equal to the acceleration due to gravity on the Earth's surface at sea level.
Note that this formula has no modification value for mass or density...the acceleration is the same. Period.
Now, wind resistance does vary based on surface area (and thus density) -- so feathers and balloons fall slower than bricks, with the acceleration due to gravity being constant but with the subtraction for wind resistance being greater.
EDIT
Did you mean a denser object accelerates faster in a medium?
Although your second post is a bit off, the question in the first one has a pretty simple answer I'd bet....
There's no way I'd want to waste CPU cycles on something as trivial to gameplay as speed of a drop tank. The guys who talk about "popup trees" are already suffering gameplay quality impact from the progrm's demands; sure wouldnt want to hurt things more. Doubt that advertising "more accurate drop tanks physics" would attract customers....
-
wow, u really want to prove me wrong, fine i wont bother w/ the physics anymore, i was just wondering why a full DT decent at the same speed as empty DT's of the same size.
-
Sorry... the old obsessive personality trait thing.
Promise, i wont make you endure another episode of "man behaving badly"....I promise to be good.
-
Well how about they at least add a collision model for the drop tank. So when I'm vulching and run out of ammo I can drop my drop tank on a upping plane and knock his wing off or something.
Anything to get just one more kill. :rofl
-
why is this on the wishlist???
-
Originally posted by Nemeth
wow, u really want to prove me wrong, fine i wont bother w/ the physics anymore, i was just wondering why a full DT decent at the same speed as empty DT's of the same size.
they shouldn't.
the denser one would have a high terminal velocity...i don't think (just a guess) they would explode on impact, but comparing low flashpoint avgas to jet fuel isn't a convincing argument. i do remember reading somewhere about pilots dropping full tanks & having the guy behind them light them with 0.50 cal. theat 2nd guy would not be needed if the tanks behaved like a ford pinto
-
Go visit some of the Museums in the Normandy area. I was amazed at how many had 'dropped" DTs in their collections. Some flattened, lots dented but overall intact.
And to be honest, worrying about making DT's explode in AH would I hope be way down the list of priorities for HTC :)
-
Weren't drop tanks made of heavy duty paper? If it's punched off an aircraft and hits the ground... I don't know what would be there to actually cause a spark and get ignition. So, that sort of nixes using them as incindiary bombs.
Make a puddle and lighting it with APIs or something... okay, but uh.. what's the practical use of it in the MA?
-
Originally posted by Nemeth
A falling body accelerates uniformly: it picks up equal amounts of speed in equal time intervals, so that, if it falls from rest, it is moving twice as fast after two seconds as it was moving after one second, and moving three times as fast after three seconds as it was after one second.
In other words, a heavier object accelerates faster than a lighter object.
Somebody either failed physics or should have.
Kind of falls under the same category as which weighs more... A pound of iron or a pound of feathers? :)
-
Originally posted by indy007
Weren't drop tanks made of heavy duty paper? If it's punched off an aircraft and hits the ground... I don't know what would be there to actually cause a spark and get ignition. So, that sort of nixes using them as incindiary bombs.
Make a puddle and lighting it with APIs or something... okay, but uh.. what's the practical use of it in the MA?
Some were paper tanks, others were metal.
-
Originally posted by SAS_KID
why is this on the wishlist???
Well if you actually looked at my first post, you would see my hint on... humm lets see... drop tanks that do damage instead of hitting ground and not doing anything yet it prob should...
And NHawk ive been leaving out information (normal me i forget to do alota stuff) the reason "heavier objects" accelerate faster than "light objects" it because there is more gravity acting on that object than the lighter object because its mass is greater, and im passing physics thank you very much.
-
it seems all of you are a little off on the physics:D
weight doesnt effect falling speed, surface area does. if you drop a tank that's full and one that isnt, the both still have the same surface area, and therefore fall at the same rate. you drop a steel ball and a feather on earth, it takes the feather far longer to hit the ground. however, in a vacuum, or, as they tested, on the moon, both hit the ground at the same time...
acceleration on earth is 9.81 m/s2, no matter what the weight of the object is. therefore the only thing that can change is air resistance, which is governed by surface area for a given volume. hope that clears it up a bit:aok
-
WOW pooface where did u go to school?
where does surface area fit into the gravity part of physics??
its the mass and strength of gravity that determine the acceleration. and yes we all kno that the gravitational force at earths surface is 9.8m/s/s
So pooface GO BACK TO SCHOOL AND RE-LEARN PHYSICS!
-
How many people have to tell you you're wrong, before you take a hint?
-
Well in AHII drop tanks do explode when hitting the ground & they leave marks like a rocket or bomb impact, I don't know if they do or do not cause damage though.
As far as what falls faster, I think the point pooface is making is that, say you take an aircrafts wings - you smash one in a compactor until it is a perfect square - the other you leave in the shape of a wing. If you were to drop thes two objects, both of which weigh exactly the same ammount & made of the same material...given enough distance of travel the square is going to impact first. The wing will have more drag & fall slower than the cube. Also the wing is likely to land somewhere other than straight below where it was released from. The drag is why & the surface area is responsible for the drag.
You can do the expirament with a sheet of paper too, wad up one in a tight ball & leave one in loose sheet form and drop them from a highrise.
-
Originally posted by Nemeth
WOW pooface where did u go to school?
where does surface area fit into the gravity part of physics??
its the mass and strength of gravity that determine the acceleration. and yes we all kno that the gravitational force at earths surface is 9.8m/s/s
So pooface GO BACK TO SCHOOL AND RE-LEARN PHYSICS!
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Acceleration is always a constant, therefore the only thing that can change that will effect the speed of an object as it falls is air resistance. Air resistance is directly proportional to surface area.
now then, we have two droptanks, both the same size, same surface area, except one has more fuel in it than the other, making it heavier. you drop them, they will fall at the SAME rate.
GET IT YET????
talk about relearning physics, you need to tell your physics teacher that he's doing it wrong tomorrow at school mate :lol
-
typing it big makes you right:noid :noid :noid :aok
-
Originally posted by Nemeth
A falling body accelerates uniformly: it picks up equal amounts of speed in equal time intervals, so that, if it falls from rest, it is moving twice as fast after two seconds as it was moving after one second, and moving three times as fast after three seconds as it was after one second.
In other words, a heavier object accelerates faster than a lighter object.
This quote is NOT funny.
These two paragraphs are related how?
Nemeth, I'm under the impression that you are still learning physics. I know what you think may make sense to you, but please read what others have said. Then read your books again.
Damnit!!!
WARNING:
From now on, no complete thoughts will form, just brainstorming outloud:
Nemeth may have something here about density.
Earth has a constant gravity.
I weight more on earth than on the moon.
Moon's gravity must be weaker.
Moons gravity must be less. Slower acceleration than the earth's gravity.
I'm thinking the moon will fall faster to earth than I will. Earth must find the moon to be more sexier than I. It's attracted to it more.
2 drop tanks underwater.
1 is filled with water. The other is filled with hellium. Which will fall faster to the sea floor?
2 drop tanks in the air.
1 is filled with fuel. The other is filled with air. Which will fall faster to the ground?
It's got something to do with density. I'm almost there. I can feel it!
Does the air pressure in the empty tank equalize from the original high altitude that it was dropped from to the denser air near the ground?
In a vacuum, we have 2 drop tanks.
1 is filled with air, and the other is filled with fuel.
Which will hit the ground first? In a vaccuum? Hmmm.. They both hit at same time? Can this be right?
So gravity in space (vaccuum) and gravity in some kind of medium (air) and density (more mass to produce greater gravity).
What the f does this all mean?
<-----------waits patiently for someone to respond. I can't go to sleep now. Damnit.
:mad:
-
Wow, this discussion reminds me of the old "if a tree falls in the woods and lands on a mime, does anyone care?" joke.
-
the tree has mixed emotions:noid :noid :noid :noid :cool:
-
kermit, it's odd really, and you would think that it wouldnt do that would you? you see, the thing with dropping them in water is that you have one that floats. neither will float in air, and the difference in density doesnt matter very much, makes very little difference. what does matter is the surface area of a given object for a certain volume. both the droptanks have the same volume, one just isnt filled.
ok, how best to explain this...
take a steel ball, and then take one the same size and melt that second one down, and mould it into a kind of spikey star shape. now they both have the same density, but different surface areas, and they fall at different speeds. you try it in a vacuum, and they fall together.
now, i can see exactly where all of you are coming from, i used to think the same way. i used to have a theory that it wasnt to do with surface area but to do with a mass/surface area ratio, and that that would explain the vacuum stuff too. but when you look at advanced mechanics, it doesnt go that way.
common sense has this annoying quality of being wrong lol. the science behind it is weird, and it's hard to understand, but 500 years of scientists have also been thinking about it, not not been able to disprove it.
it's just like some maths. you know the first time they went to the moon they had big problems because all the mathematical formulae were wrong. they think it was due to the fact that these bedrock principles of maths were invented by the greeks, who firstly didnt understand about changing gravity, as they didnt know it existed, and that they, secondly, simplified formulae and their answers so that they were easier to remember. now those formulae worked great on paper and in maths classes, but when we actually went into space we had big problems :)
you never know, you could be right, all science is theory, nothing is ever proven, and maybe you can devise an experiment to show that falling objects dont go like that, but 500 years worth of scientists have tried and not found a way.
lol, im getting text wall syndrome
i hope that kind of clears it up a bit nemeth and kermie:aok
-
Consider, however, that the empty drop tank will weigh a LOT less, and while gravity is a constant, the air resistance required to slow it down (terminal velocity) is much less than for the full DT. So they will fall the same.... until the empty one hits terminal velocity first, and the heavy one keeps accelerating. But that's a ways down the road. For the 150 feet or so that you see them fall from your plane in AH, they would be identical.
-
What if 1 drop tank is filled with fuel.
And the other is filled with helium.
And let's say the shell of the drop tank is not metal but some kinds of light paper that's very strong and holds together well.
The drop tank with fuel would fall to the ground. The drop tank with helium would float and never hit the ground. Lets say they were dropped at 30k. And the drop tank with helium doesn't float at 30k, but at 5k. I'm thinking both drop tanks would not fall at the same rate.
The total density of the drop tank with helium would eventualy stop falling around 5k. While the drop tank with fuel would keep going until it hit the hard ground.
So total density was a factor.:D
Let's say they were dropped over the ocean. The drop tank with fuel would slpash through the surface of the water and keep falling until it reached 2 miles under the surface. At that depth, it would fall anymore and might not be denser than the water at that depth, and it would then stop falling and be boyant.
Do I fall at 9.8m/s/s in water? It's only air? What kind of air? Air has different pressure at different altitudes on different days.
This whole time i'm talking about having the same shape, and same surface density. What is changing though is the total density of the drop tank.
-
well, yes, you do fall at 9.81m/s2 in water, but there is more drag, so you fall slower, and that is if you aren't floating anyway. what you're talking about is floatation, and that is totally different to a falling object. to be honest, im not really sure how it would work, dunno if anyone here does, but back to the topic at hand, droptanks, both being more dense than air will fall, and they should fall at the same rate.
had a thought... you drop 2 balloons one filled with water one not, they fall at different speeds, not sure if it's to do with density like you say, or that infact the surface of the ballon has changed because of the water, although the first is more likely.
lol im confused haha
BUT....
exhaled air is less dense than the outside air. now i really am confused.
i guess if you can actually prove it you might even win the nobel prize lol
thing with the sciences is that they have a strange habit of teaching you something false in order for you to understand it better, anyone do physics at uni and know anything more about this??
i'd actually be very interested to hear a bit more about it. i always thought the same way as you kermie but was told it was wrong by tons of physics teachers
:confused:
-
I think the equal shaped objects of different weights falling at different speeds can be explained like this;
If you have let's say a brick. One brick is made of mortar & one is made of lead.
Both are exactly the same size & shape.
The lighter brick will not hit the ground at the same time as the heavier brick if they have enough time/distance to fall.
I believe the reason is, (if I remember my high school science class correctly) that the force of the air or air resistance or drag if you like, will push against the lighter brick enough eventually, to cause it to reach whats called "maximum velocity" It can't fall any faster because of the density of the air pushing back against it that it is trying to accelerate through. The heavier brick will reach a higher "max velocity" before it hits this same invisible wall.
I could be wrong, I've been out of school a long time, but I'm sure someone will fla...I mean correct me.:D
-
im not sure brenjen. i cant say i know a whole load either, but terminal velocity is more about the air resistance
blah, this is really mssing with my head, because that isnt supposed to happen. the clay brick will have a larger surface area i reckon, seeing as it's porous and has a rougher surface than the lead.
:cry :cry :cry :cry
my head hurts. on one hand we have 500 years of brilliant minds that say otherwise, but on the other hand we have common sense. maybe gallileo was wrong............
or maybe we just need a decent explanation lol
-
Well part of it is distance traveled, shape of the object etc. Like the piece of paper I mentioned earlier, if it turns in the air & falls edge first instead of cathing the air & flipping around, it can really move fast, because of it's aerodynamic properties which dimenish the effects of drag. Of course it will probably do all sorts of twists & turns & slow itself down. Where the paper wad will fall the same over & over again. And they both are the same mass just with different shapes.
I know Newton would have loved to get in on this discussion, but I am certain, the overall effects for the purposes of this discussion, would need to have the speed of the aircraft at drop, the shape, density & the effect of gravity, and maybe even the properties of liquid & it's sloshing around in the tank all factored in. I would be willing to bet no two drops would be exactly the same, even if they varied only by milliseconds due to the unpredictable tumble. I just can't get past the shape & drag part of the equation & it's effects on the tanks when tumbling.
-
when we think about what we're actually hijacking, does it really matter what speed a droptank falls at, and is it worth reinventing physics on a bulletin board for it?
-
Y'all are making it too complex. Oh, and I mentioned terminal velocity first :P
They fall at the same speed, neglecting wind resistance. Wind resistance will eventually build up on the empty DT, keeping it from accelerating any faster. [EDIT: snip, that part will just confuse folks]
super SUPER simplified version
So the empty tank would cut through the air for a while, then the air would start pushing back. The full tank would keep cutting through the air for a longer period of time before the air pushed back. Until the air pushes back on either one as they cut through it, they'll fall the same.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Two stories. One, a flight of P-38s find a Japaneese cargo ship. They have no bombs, so they buzz the ship and release their drop tanks on the deck. One 38 incidently buzzed to close and caught his wing on an antenni or something, was damaged but flyable. The 38's extended reversed, and ignited the fuel with a straffing run. The ship burned into the night, and was confirmed sunk early that AM by Navy observers.
wow that was clever of them :aok
-
I guess Nemeth what it all boils down to is:
If you want to blow things up...put on bombs..not drop tanks :aok
-
man i shoulda left out the physics part... (bangs head agaist wall)
and the decent of the drop tanks was just an observation...
and it takes me alot to get somthin thru my head (concusions does wonders!)
Phtom that really isnt the point... if im countering BnZ i usually up a spit 9 or 14 (with DT's most of the time), these planes dont have bombs, only DT's. So if i want to bomb somthin i have to rtb (or get shot down), and up a plane that has ord... wasting time... and if DT's actually did damage i could hit a GV or AA (saving time :aok).
yes DT's do "explode" but they dont put a dent on the ground or hurt. You can drop DT on the belly of your plane and they will "explode"
-
Didn't you ever do that experiment in school with the bowling ball and ping pong ball?
I do not see how you expect DTs to do damage. Even if they hit a tank, most damage I would expect is a ringing sound left in the tank crew's ears. I don't think it is worth the time to model the correct falling of a DT. Once it has been dropped, it no longer a factor to the game. If you want to catch things on fire using fuel/bombs, ask for Napalm instead.
-
Terminal velocity is not effected by weight, but by wind resistance. Why does a baseball fall faster than a large piece of plywood (assuming it is not falling on it's side).
You could look at it this way. Instead of looking at drop tanks, compare planes. Say you take a P51D at 20k with 100% fuel and a P51D with 25% fuel. Both will compress at the same speed.
As for what Murdr said about the P38s using DTs to sink a Japanese Cargo Ship. The ship probably caught fire from something that the bullets were hitting, sparks from metal containers or ammunition cargo. But because the ship was covered in fuel from the DTs, it was able to ignite and burn more rapidly and for a longer duration of time. (Ever use gasoline to start a camp fire?). That would explain why the P38's had success in destroying something with the aid of DTs. While the P51s, having dropped their tanks on the side of a mountain, had nothing to ignite the fuel when they fired at it. The bullets would have gone into the ground too rapidly to rely on them to start a fire, and trees don't exactly spark when you shoot them.
-
Originally posted by Raptor01
Terminal velocity is not effected by weight, but by wind resistance. Why does a baseball fall faster than a large piece of plywood (assuming it is not falling on it's side).
Y...
When drag is equal to weight you are at terminal velocity.
-
If drag were equal to weight, wouldn't you be hovering?
-
but there is no drag standing still, so then you start falling again
-
Originally posted by Debonair
but there is no drag standing still, so then you start falling again
Ding ding ding :D
-
It just becomes the invisible barrier that the object can't break through. It doesn't cause it to hover, only to not fall any faster.
-
no no, iirc terminal velocity has nothing to do with weight. terminal velocity is where the drag or deceleration on the object reaches -9.81m/s/s, which counters the acceleration due to gravity and results in no net speed change. and that would mean that the only thing that affects it is surface area. im not 100% sure on that, but i think that'sw how it is
and krusty, if you stopped moving, then there would be no air resistance :)
-
so you're not sure, but you're willing to make authoratative sounding posts based on your opinion of how it probably should be?
what did you do to be banned from google?
is this an audition for straight men in a dilbert cartoon?
-
what does "authoratative sounding" actually mean? Wouldn't that be more in the way you take it than the way it was written?
-
WHO CARES mabey a drop tank should rip off a wing but do you think it would acctually hit it and physics isnt relivent and doesnt matter in this curcumstance and does it matter NO:O
-
Since we don't have fire, gas, or API rounds in the game, none of this matters even the slightest.
-
it is just useless:furious
-
Cc raptor01, other than just to tell a story the point I was making was that
a) A drop tank of avg impacting the ground and having the conditions to ignite was the exception not the rule.
b) Even trying to ignite spilled fuel with tracers is an iffy proposition.
Weight is a factor in terminal velocity. Object in motion tends to stay in motion and all that. The more mass the object has, the more force is required to stop it. The full drop tank would require more force to counter its accleration than the empty one...but since the resistive force (drag) is the same for both, the heavier tank has a higher terminal velocity. Go look up the equation for it.
-
who accually CRARES how fast a drop tank falls How would changing the speed help the game?
I just use my drop tanks on long distanst flights and drop when empty not back-up bombs
-
Originally posted by But
it is just useless:furious
Then don't reply, is it hurting your brain because you don't understand? Or because you have to pass it up without replying?
-
ok im sick of the usless arguing of physics now.. and i guess ppl hate the idea of having DT's that do damage... so i guess this thread is usless... unless ppl still want to argue about the 9.8m/s/s of earths gravitational pull... (yes i kno that only within 100 km of earths surface or aprox 45 mi [note: dont argue about this!] :furious )
-
If 1 kilometer = 0.621371192 mile, then wouldn't 100KM=62.14 (62.1371192)miles?
Not to start a conversion argument. Basically, the premise of the post was interesting, but to be honest, I barely passed physics and drink too much beer now to get into the physics argument (plus I havene't been in school for twenty years and when I was in college it was for communications & broadcasting with a minor in music). :rolleyes:
-
sure watevre works, i did a quick calc in my head... was off by a lot i guess... (damn concussions from rugby :furious )
-
I thought it was an interesting & civil discussion, a rare treat for internet forums. Too bad people are getting upset because it hasn't gotten ugly enough for them....will this make it better
:mad: :furious :mad: :furious :mad: :furious :mad: :furious :mad: :furious
-
As pointed out, there are way to many variables to what, when, and where damage would occur from falling drop tanks.
The coading effort to make this realistic would be, IMHO, a monumental programming task.
As Guppy pointed out ... in the scheme of things ... there are far bigger fish to fry in AH coad before HT might even consider adding a damage factor to falling drop tanks.
It would be cool, but the Return on Investment is extremly low.