Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: 4brkfast on November 20, 2011, 10:41:35 AM
-
Some of the way these planes are modeled don't make sense. For example, the spitmk1 rolls nothing like the spitmk16(which btw did not turn very well, less wing surface means your turn rate suffers. the spit14 and the spit16 are backwards in this regard). That doesn't make any sense. The torque of the engine will have an affect on the roll, but unless there were drastic changes to the control surfaces or boosted controls, the fact the spitmk1 rolls like a typhoon is absurd.
Explosive splash damage. If you are D10 off an e a/c and place a solid burst into him and he explodes, there should be a chance you receive explosive splash damage. This would entice a new damage system, for example, engine strikes should have a gradually negative affect on your planes performance, as opposed to getting an oil hit and being able to fly at 110% until you're out of oil. It just doesn't work like that. Particularly with some of the tougher planes that have the R 2800.
Most importantly, I feel this is the most important for the quality of the game. I keep seeing more and more people everyday pushing negative G's in airplanes that just couldn't do that, not without risking serious injury or death to the pilot. A little push down to avoid guns, to get yourself level, that's one thing, but extended, prolonged negative G, rolling and rudder, sometimes with gravity would KILL a pilot. Please add this! Spitfires should be very bad at it, you should risk killing your pilot after a short period. I see people doing this stuff as opposed to performing an ACM in a superior aircraft. Not to mention you can be entirely too violent with the control surfaces in some of these planes. I see sudden 6-G pulls that would be smashing a pilot's head against his own canopy, without even a risk of an intense black out, not to mention a deadly red out. Do you know -why- it was called a red out? Hahahaha.
<S>
-
Some of the way these planes are modeled don't make sense. For example, the spitmk1 rolls nothing like the spitmk16(which btw did not turn very well, less wing surface means your turn rate suffers. the spit14 and the spit16 are backwards in this regard). That doesn't make any sense. The torque of the engine will have an affect on the roll, but unless there were drastic changes to the control surfaces or boosted controls, the fact the spitmk1 rolls like a typhoon is absurd.
The fabric ailerons on the Spitfire Mk I, Mk II and early Mk Vs significantly reduced roll rates, particularly as speed increased. The metal aileroned Spitfires match the NACA roll rate chart. The clipped wings on the Spit XVI would have a slight effect on turning, as they do in AH, but the heavy Griffon on the Mk XIV would have much more. Compare the Mk XVI to the Mk VIII, they both use Merlin 66s, but burn some fuel from the Mk VIII first as it has more tankage.
Explosive splash damage. If you are D10 off an e a/c and place a solid burst into him and he explodes, there should be a chance you receive explosive splash damage.
30ft away? You are grossly overestimating the explosive power of these rounds. You can damage yourself with your own cannon rounds, but the range is, correctly, much shorter than 30ft.
This would entice a new damage system, for example, engine strikes should have a gradually negative affect on your planes performance, as opposed to getting an oil hit and being able to fly at 110% until you're out of oil. It just doesn't work like that. Particularly with some of the tougher planes that have the R 2800.
Realistic engine damage would be much harder to model than the gamey suggestion you made. An R2800 could be tougher, but it could just die upon being shot as well.
Most importantly, I feel this is the most important for the quality of the game. I keep seeing more and more people everyday pushing negative G's in airplanes that just couldn't do that, not without risking serious injury or death to the pilot. A little push down to avoid guns, to get yourself level, that's one thing, but extended, prolonged negative G, rolling and rudder, sometimes with gravity would KILL a pilot. Please add this! Spitfires should be very bad at it, you should risk killing your pilot after a short period. I see people doing this stuff as opposed to performing an ACM in a superior aircraft. Not to mention you can be entirely too violent with the control surfaces in some of these planes. I see sudden 6-G pulls that would be smashing a pilot's head against his own canopy, without even a risk of an intense black out, not to mention a deadly red out. Do you know -why- it was called a red out? Hahahaha.
<S>
Why would Spitfires be particularly bad at it?
-
wow, so many spurious claims in just one post. no way I'm going to tackle all of them but heres a few things for you to think about:
fabric covered ailerons,
weight of a griffon engine,
clipped wings,
detonation speed of lightly pressurised avgas in a tank vs high explosive packed into a shell,
fire a 30mm in AH from 10yds,
pilot tolerance for Gs,
how spits work under different physics to every other aircraft (I'm kidding - they dont.)
:)
-
I would like to see the possibility of fragments from a tank shell or cannon round missing the crew of AA guns. A 75mm shell within 15' wouldn't nesicarily put the gun out of action.
-
Feel free to make your own flight model if this one isn't adequate for you.
-
Brkfast, where did you get this information? It does not make seance.
Some of the way these planes are modeled don't make sense. For example, the spitmk1 rolls nothing like the spitmk16(which btw did not turn very well, less wing surface means your turn rate suffers. the spit14 and the spit16 are backwards in this regard). That doesn't make any sense. The torque of the engine will have an affect on the roll, but unless there were drastic changes to the control surfaces or boosted controls, the fact the spitmk1 rolls like a typhoon is absurd.
As Karnak said the ailerons on early Spitfires were covered with fabric and therefore were not as effective. The reason why Spit16 rolls a lot better than other late war Spitfires is because it's wings are clipped. Spit14 is significantly heavier than than all Merlin power Spitfires because of the Griffon engine, this means it can not possibly turn tighter than them.
Explosive splash damage. If you are D10 off an e a/c and place a solid burst into him and he explodes, there should be a chance you receive explosive splash damage. This would entice a new damage system, for example, engine strikes should have a gradually negative affect on your planes performance, as opposed to getting an oil hit and being able to fly at 110% until you're out of oil. It just doesn't work like that. Particularly with some of the tougher planes that have the R 2800.
We do not have the ability to partially damage the engine, you either loose it or you don't. When you get an oil leak the oil leaks out of the oil pan not the actual engine, so the engine can still work at full power while you have oil. When you run out of oil the engine will start to overheat and eventually destroy itself.
Most importantly, I feel this is the most important for the quality of the game. I keep seeing more and more people everyday pushing negative G's in airplanes that just couldn't do that, not without risking serious injury or death to the pilot. A little push down to avoid guns, to get yourself level, that's one thing, but extended, prolonged negative G, rolling and rudder, sometimes with gravity would KILL a pilot. Please add this! Spitfires should be very bad at it, you should risk killing your pilot after a short period. I see people doing this stuff as opposed to performing an ACM in a superior aircraft. Not to mention you can be entirely too violent with the control surfaces in some of these planes. I see sudden 6-G pulls that would be smashing a pilot's head against his own canopy, without even a risk of an intense black out, not to mention a deadly red out. Do you know -why- it was called a red out? Hahahaha.
How do you know how many -Gs is the other person pulling? When you pull 0Gs you have to do a steep dive, when you pull negatives for a long period of time your probably doing an outside loop.
It is obvious you don't have much experience with negative Gs, first it becomes painful but the pain does not increase if the Gs are constant, it increases as the Gs decrease. I personally never seen red but according to what I know around -2.5 to -3G you would start seeing it, I can't tell you when you would completely red out as that is very specific to the person and the training. I seen Sean Tucker continuously pull -6Gs and still be able to maintain control of the airplane.
Now a normal airplane is capable of pulling a lot more positive Gs than negative, this is because the wing is designed that way and the airframe in general can sustain more positive Gs. Making continues -G turns in combat is extremely stupid and if someone does that to you just roll over and you'll be easy able to out turn them and shoot them down.
Just for the record, Aces High is the most realistic simulator I seen that is under a million dollars. Sure it does not simulate aircraft operations but the flight physics is done extremely well.
-
Could there be a roll rate issue with the Spitfire Mark I though? Surely the fact that the ailerons were fabric covered alone can't be the only explanation for the remarkably sedentary roll rate?
-
No. The numbers have been posted. Test flight data has been presented. The Spit1 didn't roll as well as later models.
AH has it right in that regard.
Machfly: I agree it's the best but there are many areas it could be improved.
I wonder if the OP is talking about the inverted push-up planes do for extended periods of time to stick stir their way out of a sure death? In THAT case it's been proven most engines cannot operate for more than a few seconds (15 seconds in some cases) inverted due to the oil starvation or some such. The oil pumps are meant to work in gravity-fed situations. Many (if not all?) aircraft have restrictions in the manual saying do not fly inverted for "X" period of time.
In that regard I think HTC could improve it a bit. It might cut down on a lot of the gamey fish-out-of-water manuvers, but it wouldn't stop short, rapid moves (i.e. "jinks" etc) that are under that duration.
-
AH has it right in that regard.
They get it right so much more than many give them credit for. I mean, it is their full time job after all! Most of us geeks just research this kinda thing part time.
Perhaps if one is going to challenge the modeled behavior you could include multiple diverse reputable sources to backup your claims. In that way one can become part of the solution rather than venting a preferred behavior characteristic.
I mean, I wish the FM2 came with a bubble canopy. I really do! Maybe there was an instance of an infield mod or two where they did this. I can understand though that my preference has no business making it into their programming workload. I have no facts to back it up even if it were true.
These AH guys really have done a bang up job on modelling these planes. I've have heard they do change planes if\when more accurate facts are presented.
Its all good though. Get back in the cockpit and fly on. :salute
-
Slade: They're not infallible. They get the cold hard numbers down most of the time. Roll rate is a number recorded more often than not. It's sometimes the subjective things like stall handling or qualitative aspects (rather than quantitative) that may be more suscecptible to having issues.
They do make changes (sometimes slowly :D ) if you can present more accurate info than they had/have.
The P-38G weight was fixed in somewhat moderate time, but it took many many years of solid asking/requesting to get the 109 ammo limits increased. You never know how busy they'll be and how much time they might take to address any particular issue. I like that they try, though.
-
No. The numbers have been posted. Test flight data has been presented. The Spit1 didn't roll as well as later models.
Where is the 'test flight data' please?
Regardless I would like a deeper explanation from some of the Spitfire experts as to why the Mark I is so much worse than the Mark V for example.
-
I will leave it to the many spitfire experts. Suffice it to say this topic has come up many times.
-
In THAT case it's been proven most engines cannot operate for more than a few seconds (15 seconds in some cases) inverted due to the oil starvation or some such. The oil pumps are meant to work in gravity-fed situations. Many (if not all?) aircraft have restrictions in the manual saying do not fly inverted for "X" period of time.
FIGHTERS - with inverted restrictions ? These are not Dodge Pickups - DRY SUMP, positive feed, oil tanks became standard military design in the 1920s. CESSNA 150s may have such limitations. :rofl One of my old instructors had a Meyers OTW trainer (bi-plane primary trainer) that we did 60MPH inverted passes at 50 ft - straight down the runway with at airshows ... including approach and point rolling exit, we'd be inverted 2 -3 minutes at a time.
As for he Spit Mk1 ? Someone should check, but I THINK it has an older, thicker, airfoil - like a Hurri. The Spit evolved from a winning race plane design that was built for SPEED not Manuverability.
-
Yes, high performance WW2 aircraft could not perform inverted. I believe it was the F4u that said you can't do it for longer than 15-20 seconds. Flying down a runway for an airshow pass doesn't take all that long. He probably knew his limits and what he could do.
Those engines are not meant to be used inverted. Not for a long time. In AH you get folks neg-G flip flopping upside down while running away from somebody on their tail because that's all they know how to do in a game that allows it. In WW2 you did the same thing and you'd be in major trouble.
-
FIGHTERS - with inverted restrictions ?
I know the Mustang is limited to 10 seconds inverted due to oil starvation with prolonged negative G. That probably pretty much goes across the board for WWII fighters. There really wasn't much need for sustained negative G.
The AT-6 will quit running when inverted due to carb issues.
-
Spitfires should be very bad at it...
Why Spitfires especially may I ask?
-
FIGHTERS - with inverted restrictions ? These are not Dodge Pickups - DRY SUMP, positive feed, oil tanks became standard military design in the 1920s. CESSNA 150s may have such limitations. :rofl One of my old instructors had a Meyers OTW trainer (bi-plane primary trainer) that we did 60MPH inverted passes at 50 ft - straight down the runway with at airshows ... including approach and point rolling exit, we'd be inverted 2 -3 minutes at a time.
depends on the motor. if that meyers trainer had the old 5 cylinder rotary engine on it, the lubrication system is way different than the v and radial engines used in wwii combat aircraft.
-
depends on the motor. if that meyers trainer had the old 5 cylinder rotary engine on it, the lubrication system is way different than the v and radial engines used in wwii combat aircraft.
The OTW did not use a rotary engine. The production airplane had a Kinner R-5 radial.
-
I did trawl up some information while researching the Spitfire Mark I fuelling issue recently that the Merlin engine couldn't survive prolonged inverted flight because of the oil system.
-
Machfly: I agree it's the best but there are many areas it could be improved.
True.
I wonder if the OP is talking about the inverted push-up planes do for extended periods of time to stick stir their way out of a sure death? In THAT case it's been proven most engines cannot operate for more than a few seconds (15 seconds in some cases) inverted due to the oil starvation or some such. The oil pumps are meant to work in gravity-fed situations. Many (if not all?) aircraft have restrictions in the manual saying do not fly inverted for "X" period of time.
In that regard I think HTC could improve it a bit. It might cut down on a lot of the gamey fish-out-of-water manuvers, but it wouldn't stop short, rapid moves (i.e. "jinks" etc) that are under that duration.
I know Merlins could not pull negative Gs for long periods of time, but I'm not aware of any aircraft that had the same problem. It's not a hard thing to make, the Super Decathlon that I used to fly had a dry sump oil system and a 2nd fuel tank under the instruments so it would be able to pull constant negative Gs.
-
I know the Mustang is limited to 10 seconds inverted due to oil starvation with prolonged negative G. That probably pretty much goes across the board for WWII fighters. There really wasn't much need for sustained negative G.
Are you sure that it goes for all? Your right about the Merlins but I never heard of other engines have such problems.
-
In the MA these days the primary escape method is a vertical push and pull routine while simulataneously rolling and yawing. My question concerns the effects that would have upon the fuel delivery system and thus the fuel pump. If it cannot be done with a WWII setup as it was flown during the war then it shouldnt work here. If a failure would occur to engines or pumps or carbs during the war then they should fail in AH.
-
I agree there. I'm against random failures, but if you CAUSE it to fail, fail it should.
Machfly, I've read similar limitations for a number of common engines in WW2 planes. As I mentioned the F4u, which shares an engine with F6Fs, and a couple of inlines I've read about had similar issues.
EDIT: I'd like to see the heat meter spike super fast as soon as you go neg-G... 10 seconds and it pegs red and dies, like you ran out of radiatior fluid or oil. That way you have a little visual cue how much time you have. Of course, time any plane to its historic limit (10 seconds, 20 seconds, whatever).
-
Are you sure that it goes for all? Your right about the Merlins but I never heard of other engines have such problems.
No, I'm not. I don't expect that the aircraft would have been designed/built with the expectation of sustaining negative G.
-
I wonder if the OP is talking about the inverted push-up planes do for extended periods of time to stick stir their way out of a sure death? In THAT case it's been proven most engines cannot operate for more than a few seconds (15 seconds in some cases) inverted due to the oil starvation or some such. The oil pumps are meant to work in gravity-fed situations. Many (if not all?) aircraft have restrictions in the manual saying do not fly inverted for "X" period of time.
In that regard I think HTC could improve it a bit. It might cut down on a lot of the gamey fish-out-of-water manuvers, but it wouldn't stop short, rapid moves (i.e. "jinks" etc) that are under that duration.
It's not going to be changed. This has already been wished for by myself and others close to 10 years ago and HiTech stated then that it's in place for game play reasons and will not be changed. I don't think he's moved from his stance in the last 10 years. We used to have this feature in AW and it did force you to be aware of this limitation while doing ACM, wish HiTech would change his stance and add it.
ack-ack
-
Warbirds has engine failure with sustained negative g, but you have to go quite a while for it to take effect -- about long enough for a low inverted pass. :D
-
if the oil starvation is an overheating issue the 109s would be screwed with the heads at the bottom (top if you're inverted) :uhoh
for the other Vs I imagine its more of an engine life constraint with the big end not getting enough lube.
cant see how it would make much difference for the radials since the heads are arranged ... um ... radially.
:headscratch:
-
Warbirds has engine failure with sustained negative g, but you have to go quite a while for it to take effect -- about long enough for a low inverted pass. :D
From my time in WB, I think the P-38 had 10 seconds of inverted flying time before engine damage, which was the same in AW as well.
ack-ack
-
It's not a hard thing to make, the Super Decathlon that I used to fly had a dry sump oil system and a 2nd fuel tank under the instruments so it would be able to pull constant negative Gs.
It seems inverted flight and negative G force are being confused here ... VERY different things ... as are Radial and Rotary Engines. Positive flow lubrication has been around for a VERY long time. NEG G -May- affect some WWII lube systems, Inverted flight doesn't. I've seen the porposeing escape manuver some have refered to here, it definately DOES pull negative, but it's a terribly ineffective manuver that get's them killed real quick. Not sure WHO is teaching this to noobs but I suspect their motives ??? :huh
-
... unless you're in a slightly faster aircraft and hes almost out of guns range and you want to extend and reset :)
-
if the oil starvation is an overheating issue the 109s would be screwed with the heads at the bottom (top if you're inverted) :uhoh
Very astute!
for the other Vs I imagine its more of an engine life constraint with the big end not getting enough lube.
The problem isn't + oil pressure, diaphram oil pumps for aircraft went out during WWI and were replaced by sealed chamber impeller pumps. The problem is return flow to the sump ... a well designed engine provides for this under all expected circumstances, including INVERTED and NEG G. But many WWII engines were not exactly designed for fighter aircraft ... The merlin was initially intended as transport/bomber engine adapted to a race RACE PLANE and AVAILABLE for the Spit when needed. The Allison V-12 was adapted from an engine for a threshing machine. Adaptation included oil return during inverted flight, but NEG G might trap oil and impede it's return to the sump. :salute
-
No, I'm not. I don't expect that the aircraft would have been designed/built with the expectation of sustaining negative G.
That's true, it was not needed at the time.
-
It seems inverted flight and negative G force are being confused here ... VERY different things ... as are Radial and Rotary Engines. Positive flow lubrication has been around for a VERY long time. NEG G -May- affect some WWII lube systems, Inverted flight doesn't. I've seen the porposeing escape manuver some have refered to here, it definately DOES pull negative, but it's a terribly ineffective manuver that get's them killed real quick. Not sure WHO is teaching this to noobs but I suspect their motives ??? :huh
When your flying inverted straight & level your at -1Gs.
-
The problem isn't + oil pressure, diaphram oil pumps for aircraft went out during WWI and were replaced by sealed chamber impeller pumps. The problem is return flow to the sump ... a well designed engine provides for this under all expected circumstances, including INVERTED and NEG G. But many WWII engines were not exactly designed for fighter aircraft ...
ahhh ok I hadnt thought about the scavenging bit.
threshing machine :lol
-
When your flying inverted straight & level your at -1Gs.
No, you're still flying at +1 G ... in the static sense. When your flying right side up, Straight and Level you're at +1 G too ... those of us bound to this planet live our LIVES at +1 G. When refering to AIRCRAFT in flight, we are talking about + and - influences on airframe and occupant (basicaly - tension & compresion, -stress-) it's not static gravity, we just use that as a unit of measure. :rolleyes:
Areodynamically -1 G is the neutralization of planetary (+1G static) gravity (= no stress, weightless). Regular Inverted flight does NOT accomplish that. This is what NASA does on their parabolic (-1G stress) stratosphere training flights for astronauts. It -IS notable that -1G flight -relieves- normal (static) stress loading on an airframe. ;)
-
No, you're still flying at +1 G ... in the static sense. When your flying right side up, Straight and Level you're at +1 G too ... those of us bound to this planet live our LIVES at +1 G. When refering to AIRCRAFT in flight, we are talking about + and - influences on airframe and occupant (basicaly - tension & compresion, -stress-) it's not static gravity, we just use that as a unit of measure. :rolleyes:
Areodynamically -1 G is the neutralization of planetary (+1G static) gravity (= no stress, weightless). Regular Inverted flight does NOT accomplish that. This is what NASA does on their parabolic (-1G stress) stratosphere training flights for astronauts. It -IS notable that -1G flight -relieves- normal (static) stress loading on an airframe. ;)
Your mostly correct. Except when you have no stress on the airframe it's 0Gs.
Try standing on your head, you'll feel stress. At 0Gs your actually floating and there is no stress.
-
Inverted flight doesn't.
I think most people think of inverted flight as a negative G endeavour...not just the 180 point on a roll or top of a loop.
-
No, you're still flying at +1 G ...
Have you ever flown inverted in a real life airplane? Whether you thinks it's + or - G, I can tell you it's toes to top of head...outballs out.
-
The merlin was initially intended as transport/bomber engine adapted to a race RACE PLANE and AVAILABLE for the Spit when needed.
:headscratch:
The Allison V-12 was adapted from an engine for a threshing machine.
A stroke of luck for the war effort then that farming implements demand so much power in a compact and lightweight package :lol
I find adept stick stirrers very hard to shoot. There was a certain Corsair pilot in the MA a few weeks ago who was virtually untouchable. He MC Hammered all my remaining ammunition away. This aspect I find a bit 'gamey'. Anyone found a reliable countermeasure?
-
Only semi-reliable counter-measure I've found is to get in close and lob a few taters at them. Almost always, if you land even a single round anywhere on the airframe, you'll either kill him, or remove enough parts that he can't manuver so violently.
-
ok people i will try to explain the negative g manuver, it was simple to do, but i dont have all the colorful technical words so i will do my best and have to hope you can figure it out.
Brkfast dove in on me from an alt advantage as i was already almost too slow to move trying to climb up to join my squadies nuetralize some of the bad guys advantage. i saw him coming at me with speed and almost at my lower alt so i turned first into him to use my little remaining speed to reduce the distance between us giving him less time to set up a shot, and to make him turn to avoid what he would believe to be a possible ho/ram attempt.....hey it was all i could think of........so as he boomed just past me, having turned away after missing his very small shot window, i nosed down picked up a little speed and banked. i knew he would be coming back and i would not have time to obtain any real speed before he was on me. as i banked while slightly ruddering downward i watched him climb turn and drop in again. i neared the point of my nose pointing at him i leveled my wings and then started to climb with a little bit of rudder for twist, he did as i expected, he nosed up a bit and adjust his intercept course. i climbed and flipped as if i was gunna do a loop in front of him broadside, he angle his attack to meet me at the top of my loop, i then popped my flaps and pushed the nose hard into the negative (actually climbing upwards while inverted) he couldnt correct fast enough and fired his shots just under me where i should have been then zoomed away. i went into a stall flubbered around a bit but recovered. by then we had alot more company from both sides to concentrate on so there wasnt a third pass.
it was cheesey, and a bit gamey i admit, but i was at a disadvantage against a faster plane that held the high ground from the start with a more skilled pilot flying it. i gamed him twice, i know that in rl i would have died but like i told him at the time, well it kept me alive in here...
:salute Brkfast it was a fun encounter
-
Have you ever flown inverted in a real life airplane? Whether you thinks it's + or - G, I can tell you it's toes to top of head...outballs out.
Sure, and that's plain old hanging upside down from a tree branch (static) GRAVITY. + / - G is NOT gravity ... it's a unit of measure used to express the amount of stress being applied to an airframe (in this context). There is no such stress being applied when you are flyimg straight and level and inverted. You are just hanging upside down from that tree branch. :rolleyes:
-
Sure, and that's plain old hanging upside down from a tree branch (static) GRAVITY. + / - G is NOT gravity ... it's a unit of measure used to express the amount of stress being applied to an airframe (in this context). There is no such stress being applied when you are flyimg straight and level and inverted. You are just hanging upside down from that tree branch. :rolleyes:
So your saying that there is not stress when your flight straight and level either? There is, it's 1G, when your inverted it's -1G. Go stand on your head right now, you'll see the difference.
By "sure" did you mean yes, you have flown inverted?
-
G is a measure of acceleration. Metes per second squared? If you're upside down or rightside up, as long as you're stable in terms of your flight it's 1G.
Inverted or upright, if you're flying level with no sink at a steady speed I'd say that's 1G.
Now inverted 1G can still cause issues with engine pumps, lubricants, oil feeds, radiator feeds, etc. There's only 1G acting on them, but it's going in a different direction than they need it to go for them to operate properly. Kind of like how long can you last standing on your head before the blood rushes to it and you have to stop? Your body didn't break down, it didn't lose structural integrity from stresses, but the fluids are meant to pump in certain ways with and against gravity, and if you reverse that direction it can lead to problems.
Same with engines.
EDIT: Let's put it this way, P-51 guns were known to jam if fired at -1G or more. It's not that they fell apart and couldn't work... It's that they were designed to feed with gravity's help, and wouldn't function fighting against gravity.
-
Your mostly correct. Except when you have no stress on the airframe it's 0Gs.
Try standing on your head, you'll feel stress. At 0Gs your actually floating and there is no stress.
You're correct. But the stress you feel is static gravity - mathematically speaking it's a constant, not an applied mechanical force.
Now stop and think about that airplane doing the parabolic 0G flight so that the astronauts can float around in a (simulated) 0G environment for a few minutes and experience weightlessness BEFORE doing the spam in a can thing.
The AIRFRAME has to be subjected to (areodynamic) NEGATIVE 1G stress in order to CREATE the (static 0G) weightless environment inside it. Technically it's a mathematical illusion, a simulation, static gravity is still functioning, but the percieved experience is VERY close to weightlessness. It serves to illustrate the DIFFERENCE between MECHANICAL STRESS measured in units of +/- G and STATIC GRAVITY. For this unit of measurement 0G does not = weightless. It = NO APPLIED STRESS.
Hmmmm ... Maybe Hightech should model a Nazi UFO with a graviton powerplant ? :x
-
So your saying that there is not stress when your flight straight and level either? There is, it's 1G, when your inverted it's -1G. Go stand on your head right now, you'll see the difference.
There is no apllied mechanical stress or G on the airframe (Yes, I'm disregarding powered acceleration, deceleration and drag, but they aren't part of what's under consideration) when flying straight and level. >G< is a unit of measure that engineers use to express applied force. Ever seen an actual G meter ... It -HAS- a 0 on it ... it HAS TO, you cannot pass from + to - without going thru 0. Static Gravity is an entirely different thing. The ONLY time you will experience weightlessness in an aircraft is during the application of -G force.
By "sure" did you mean yes, you have flown inverted?
Yes ... :angel:
-
The ONLY time you will experience weightlessness in an aircraft is during the application of -G force.
So your saying that you don't feel weightlessness with 0Gs? :huh
Yes ... :angel:
Were you the PIC or just getting a ride?
-
G is a measure of acceleration. Metes per second squared?
Acceleration (not speed) is one force that can be measured in Gs, there are many others. acceleration = +G, deceleration = -G. When neither force is acting on the airframe (constant speed) These G forces measure 0.
Inverted or upright, if you're flying level with no sink at a steady speed I'd say that's 1G.
Unless you leave the planet every moment of your life is spent at 1G (static) but that's GRAVITY ... NOT applied mechanical force. Because it NEVER CHANGES it is a Mathematical Constant and because it is a constant it is NOT included in the computation of Mechancal Forces.
Ever seen an actual G meter? ... It -HAS- a 0 on it ... it HAS TO, you cannot pass from + to - without going thru 0. Yet, the ONLY time you will experience weightlessness in an aircraft is during the application of -G force, NOT at 0G.
If nothing else I hope this conversation illustrates just how -NOT ARCADE- Aces High is. :salute
-
So your saying that you don't feel weightlessness with 0Gs? :huh
In the context of Applied Mechanical Force measurement, yes ... that's exactly what I'm saying ... If you DO? then HIGH is not a reference to altitude.
If it helps ... GRAVITY is NOT measured in Gs. It's measured as a unit called GRAVITYS and as a percentage of Earth Normal. The Moon has around .1 Gravity as I recall ???
Were you the PIC or just getting a ride?
Inverted flight with passengers, other than for training, is discouraged by both the FAA and the Military. I was in training during most of my experience with inverted ... Private Sector Rental on Rated Birds is a bit excessive. Ever done an inverted FLAT SPIN? ... stick to aces high if you try it LOTS SAFER! :angel:
-
Inverted flight with passengers, other than for training, is discouraged by both the FAA and the Military.
That's not true, but is probably a whole different thread.
-
In the context of Applied Mechanical Force measurement, yes ... that's exactly what I'm saying ... If you DO? then HIGH is not a reference to altitude.
If it helps ... GRAVITY is NOT measured in Gs. It's measured as a unit called GRAVITYS and as a percentage of Earth Normal. The Moon has around .1 Gravity as I recall ???
Inverted flight with passengers, other than for training, is discouraged by both the FAA and the Military. I was in training during most of my experience with inverted ... Private Sector Rental on Rated Birds is a bit excessive. Ever done an inverted FLAT SPIN? ... stick to aces high if you try it LOTS SAFER! :angel:
At 0Gs you feel 0Gs, not 1G. Where your pulling 0Gs your accelerating towards earth at the same rate at it would be "wanting" to pull you, therefore you do not feel any forces. I have no idea how you brought the moon into this conversation.
Please site the § # where it says that you can't do aerobatics with passengers. This information is very wrong.
-
All I know and that comes from a personal experience is that pulling negative gs is a VERY painful and discomfort situation and you don’t do it unless you have a very very serious reason. First time I pulled ne-g thought my brain will eject of my scalp. Anyhow when OP talks about super ne-g maneuvers i think he means about the incredible superhuman maneuvers (stick-stirring ?) that many players pull and I agree on this.
-
At 0Gs you feel 0Gs, not 1G. Where your pulling 0Gs your accelerating towards earth at the same rate at it would be "wanting" to pull you, therefore you do not feel any forces. I have no idea how you brought the moon into this conversation.
Please site the § # where it says that you can't do aerobatics with passengers. This information is very wrong.
I'm sorry I can't describe the difference between GRAVITY and Mechanical Stress better. Obviously someone with better communication skills will have to explain it to you. They are completely different things and are NOT measured in the same manner.
And I'm not here to argue FAA regs ... If you ever flew acrobatics you'd know it's ONLY allowed in specified areas and you're supposed to notify the local control of your intent and schedule so as to prevent possible accidents with anyone else using the area. You will always be asked for a reg# and flight plan (which includes a passenger manifest). If you tell them you are taking a passenger, you will get a POINTED lecture about endangering people un-necessarily. I didn't say there was a reg against it, I said it was discouraged. The military simply won't allow it "officially" and if you get caught doing it on your own, you will be subject to disciplinary action. :cool:
-
Okay
-
The fabric ailerons on the Spitfire Mk I, Mk II and early Mk Vs significantly reduced roll rates, particularly as speed increased. The metal aileroned Spitfires match the NACA roll rate chart. The clipped wings on the Spit XVI would have a slight effect on turning, as they do in AH, but the heavy Griffon on the Mk XIV would have much more. Compare the Mk XVI to the Mk VIII, they both use Merlin 66s, but burn some fuel from the Mk VIII first as it has more tankage.
30ft away? You are grossly overestimating the explosive power of these rounds. You can damage yourself with your own cannon rounds, but the range is, correctly, much shorter than 30ft.Realistic engine damage would be much harder to model than the gamey suggestion you made. An R2800 could be tougher, but it could just die upon being shot as well.
Why would Spitfires be particularly bad at it?
Cool stuff on the Spits ailerons. What I mean by splash damage, I don't mean round strikes, I mean the aircraft itself exploding. There actually is a bit, a small bit, of splash in guns like the 37mm. I landed one if a typh D5 from me and knocked out my own engine once.
It's all about the wing surface when dealing with negative G's. Airplanes like the 109 could perform this maneuver much better because of the smaller wing surface, compared to the spit, similarly, it's also why the spitfire can turn better than the 109. Either way, there's still an excess in these maneuver's, to a point where in life you would seriously be risking your own life attempting something so intense for an extended period of time. By extended, I mean up to a good 5-10 seconds, from what I see sometimes.
The spitfire 16 in real life was intended for high alt. The way it is in this game is more like the spit9 should be, as an all around turn fighter. RAF pilots said so, after the spit5, the spit9 reigned supreme for the remainder of the war. The spit8 was designed for low alt, the 16 for high and and the 9 as the standard fighter. If any of them should be like the spit16 is, it should be the spit9 or some late war variation of it. I've suggested this before, adding a fourth load out option to choose your powerplant. There were MANY versions of the spit9 as well as planes like the 109g-6. For scenario, snapshot and overall gameplay quality, wouldn't this be fun? Variants in aircraft that may adjust the eny.
This isn't a realistic game, no matter which way you cut it. You don't believe me? Try doing some of this stuff in Il-2, a much more detailed and well researched game. They too have some over modeled stuff, but at least it's more accurate in accordance to what the historians and pilots said. I was shocked once when a ww2 airplane tv show(history channel) said that the 190 completely outperformed the p47 in every aspect but in the roll, which prompted all the research. Their 30mm doesn't drop after a short distance, for example and is not nearly as slow.
And I'm not saying that you can't push your nose over in life, you can, it's the sudden intensity of it and the prolonged endurance. We are all flying with pilots that have extreme endurance, which is fine for the sake of the game and playability(not everybody has 100 hours a month to play and 'level up' your pilot), but I think at a certain point you begin to bleed from your ears and nose, as the blood is rushing to your brain.
This is quoted from wikipedia(they surprisingly have very little information about this): A redout occurs when the body experiences a negative g-force sufficient to cause a blood flow from the lower parts of the body to the head. It is the inverse effect of a greyout or brownout, where blood flows away from the head to the lower parts of the body. Redouts are potentially dangerous and can cause retinal damage and hemorrhagic stroke.
If anything, there should be a serious risk of wounding or killing your pilot, particularly if the move is intense and prolonged.
And as for the person who told me to make my own flight model, you're not even worth quoting. I'm a paying customer. I have been for over two years now. This is a discussion board, isn't it? Particularly, this is the wishlist part of it. Not the troll list. Thanks for your brilliant input however, much appreciated.
Oh, and FLotsom, your move was fine - I wasn't trying to attack you personally, you did what you could. My point is you shouldn't be allowed to get away with something like that with your pilot unharmed or alive. Haha. But you were in a 109, as silly as it was, it's still not nearly as silly as a spitfire doing it.
Machfly, I wasn't suggesting the smaller wing surface helps you pull more G's, I'm saying that the effects on the pilot are much less because of the lesser wing surface.
-
It's all about the wing surface when dealing with negative G's. Airplanes like the 109 could perform this maneuver much better because of the smaller wing surface. Either way, there's still an excess in these maneuver's, to a point where in life you would seriously be risking your own life attempting something so intense for an extended period of time. By extended, I mean up to a good 5-10 seconds, from what I see sometimes.
Smaller wing surface does not help you with pulling more -Gs, it has to do with the shape of the wing. You don't know how many -Gs the other plane is pulling, it might look like a lot to you but in reality it's most likely less than 3.
This isn't a realistic game, no matter which way you cut it. You don't believe me? Try doing some of this stuff in Il-2, a much more detailed and well researched game. They too have some over modeled stuff, but at least it's accurate. Their 30mm doesn't drop after a short distance, for example and is not nearly as slow.
So your information is coming from Il-2, what makes you think Il-2 is realistic? Last time I checked it was a lot closer to a game and much further from a simulator than AH.
-
They too have some over modeled stuff, but at least it's accurate.
:confused:
-
I just wonder why the Hurri1 and Spit1 are modeled so that the engine cuts out under -G loading...when I'm really pretty certain alot of our planset would act in a similar way. I could also be totally wrong. can someone clarify this?
-
I just wonder why the Hurri1 and Spit1 are modeled so that the engine cuts out under -G loading...when I'm really pretty certain alot of our planset would act in a similar way. I could also be totally wrong. can someone clarify this?
they have carburetters all of the others in the plane set are injected.
-
I think it was Hartman who would push the stick into one of the front corners of the cockpit as his "last ditch but always works" moves...that would subject you to plenty of negative/outside G.
I agree that what's done in game sometimes is silly.
-
So much wrong stuff...
I.... I can't even begin.....
-
Some of the way these planes are modeled don't make sense. For example, the spitmk1 rolls nothing like the spitmk16(which btw did not turn very well, less wing surface means your turn rate suffers. the spit14 and the spit16 are backwards in this regard). That doesn't make any sense. The torque of the engine will have an affect on the roll, but unless there were drastic changes to the control surfaces or boosted controls, the fact the spitmk1 rolls like a typhoon is absurd.
Explosive splash damage. If you are D10 off an e a/c and place a solid burst into him and he explodes, there should be a chance you receive explosive splash damage. This would entice a new damage system, for example, engine strikes should have a gradually negative affect on your planes performance, as opposed to getting an oil hit and being able to fly at 110% until you're out of oil. It just doesn't work like that. Particularly with some of the tougher planes that have the R 2800.
Most importantly, I feel this is the most important for the quality of the game. I keep seeing more and more people everyday pushing negative G's in airplanes that just couldn't do that, not without risking serious injury or death to the pilot. A little push down to avoid guns, to get yourself level, that's one thing, but extended, prolonged negative G, rolling and rudder, sometimes with gravity would KILL a pilot. Please add this! Spitfires should be very bad at it, you should risk killing your pilot after a short period. I see people doing this stuff as opposed to performing an ACM in a superior aircraft. Not to mention you can be entirely too violent with the control surfaces in some of these planes. I see sudden 6-G pulls that would be smashing a pilot's head against his own canopy, without even a risk of an intense black out, not to mention a deadly red out. Do you know -why- it was called a red out? Hahahaha.
<S>
Finally, someone who sees it my way, and yet people were blaming me for so-called "whining and complaining" when yet I've tried to tell them and they don't listen. Such as HTC for overmodeling the M4 76's hull armor which they barely just fixed. <S> 4brkfast :salute
-
Finally, someone who sees it my way, and yet people were blaming me for so-called "whining and complaining" when yet I've tried to tell them and they don't listen. Such as HTC for overmodeling the M4 76's hull armor which they barely just fixed. <S> 4brkfast :salute
Notice the only person that sees it your way is also just as wrong as you were?
ack-ack
-
I just wonder why the Hurri1 and Spit1 are modeled so that the engine cuts out under -G loading...when I'm really pretty certain alot of our planset would act in a similar way. I could also be totally wrong. can someone clarify this?
Alot?
Yes you are wrong.
-
The spitfire 16 in real life was intended for high alt. The way it is in this game is more like the spit9 should be, as an all around turn fighter. RAF pilots said so, after the spit5, the spit9 reigned supreme for the remainder of the war. The spit8 was designed for low alt, the 16 for high and and the 9 as the standard fighter. If any of them should be like the spit16 is, it should be the spit9 or some late war variation of it. I've suggested this before, adding a fourth load out option to choose your powerplant. There were MANY versions of the spit9 as well as planes like the 109g-6. For scenario, snapshot and overall gameplay quality, wouldn't this be fun? Variants in aircraft that may adjust the eny.
This is wrong, Spit16 was specifically designed for low altitudes, that's why the wings are clipped. Spit8 was a medium altitude fighter.
This isn't a realistic game, no matter which way you cut it. You don't believe me? Try doing some of this stuff in Il-2, a much more detailed and well researched game. They too have some over modeled stuff, but at least it's more accurate in accordance to what the historians and pilots said. I was shocked once when a ww2 airplane tv show(history channel) said that the 190 completely outperformed the p47 in every aspect but in the roll, which prompted all the research. Their 30mm doesn't drop after a short distance, for example and is not nearly as slow.
HTC designed AH to simulate real world flying, not Il-2. It looks like your idea of realism is Il-2, Il-2 is a lot further from real life than AH.
This is quoted from wikipedia(they surprisingly have very little information about this): A redout occurs when the body experiences a negative g-force sufficient to cause a blood flow from the lower parts of the body to the head. It is the inverse effect of a greyout or brownout, where blood flows away from the head to the lower parts of the body. Redouts are potentially dangerous and can cause retinal damage and hemorrhagic stroke.
Lets ignore the fact that you quoted wikipedia for now. This quote is correct but it does not say at what force that happens at.
If anything, there should be a serious risk of wounding or killing your pilot, particularly if the move is intense and prolonged.
So how many -Gs will kill the pilot?
Machfly, I wasn't suggesting the smaller wing surface helps you pull more G's, I'm saying that the effects on the pilot are much less because of the lesser wing surface.
No, if your pulling -3Gs you feel -3Gs no matter how big your wing is.
-
Finally, someone who sees it my way, and yet people were blaming me for so-called "whining and complaining" when yet I've tried to tell them and they don't listen. Such as HTC for overmodeling the M4 76's hull armor which they barely just fixed. <S> 4brkfast :salute
Wrong. Its just a lack of understanding on how the damage system works. I have a theory on how it works, never been confirmed, but it falls into line with what you see in game. PM me if you want to hear it.
@ MachFly: I think the record is somewhere around 170g's, but thats in racing accidents, when they decelerate from 100-somthing mph to 0 in the space of a few feet (when they hit something solid, like a wall).
-
@ MachFly: I think the record is somewhere around 170g's, but thats in racing accidents, when they decelerate from 100-somthing mph to 0 in the space of a few feet (when they hit something solid, like a wall).
WOW that's a lot.
I was actually referring to negative Gs, you don't normally experience that in a car.
-
Don't ever do an inverted -2.5 g push with a passenger aboard, they tend not to appreciate it.
Had a friend in the back seat who was enjoy the acro. Decided to do a 4 point roll but slowly added the rudder in after the 1st quarter so i didn't bounce his head off the side of the canopy. This caused my nose to be slightly lower then normal, which I had to correct for in the inverted to continue the maneuver. Was just a normal quick correction. When the maneuver was complete I glanced down saw the g meter at -2.5, I really hadn't felt it because when you are preforming the maneuver you prep for it. It really sucked for the guy in back, I apologized profusely.
HiTech
-
Neat story.
So when are you going to coad it so that stick stirrers hurt themselves through such idiotic maneuvering?
Ya know, since you realize how unrealistic it is and all...
-
Notice the only person that sees it your way is also just as wrong as you were?
ack-ack
Not just multiple problems with the game, but this must be why I proved to HTC that the M4 76's hull armor was too strong now wasnt it?
-
Wrong. Its just a lack of understanding on how the damage system works. I have a theory on how it works, never been confirmed, but it falls into line with what you see in game. PM me if you want to hear it.
The damage model is just messed up. For example for planes, I'm pretty sure a 20mm Hispano round would not blow your plane into thousands of pieces in 1 shot, it wasn't a 5 inch shell for crying out loud. I don't mind hearing it if you want to tell me about it ace.
-
I'm pretty sure a 20mm Hispano round would not blow your plane into thousands of pieces in 1 shot
I'm pretty sure they didnt too. I'll bet HT is pretty sure they didnt too, since it doesnt do this ingame.
-
@AKAK- BTW, your so-called "whiners/wrong people" that are complaining about the same thing, I see that you have all the time in world to be on the forums, why not make time to fly other planes in AH and get out of your 38 that you fly 24/7 (possibly the only thing you can fly) then you would see what everyone is talking about instead of ranting about how were so wrong.
-
I'm pretty sure they didnt too. I'll bet HT is pretty sure they didnt too, since it doesnt do this ingame.
LOL, but yet it blows wings off in 3 pieces in 1 shot.........
-
@AKAK- BTW, your so-called "whiners/wrong people" that are complaining about the same thing, I see that you have all the time in world to be on the forums, why not make time to fly other planes in AH and get out of your 38 that you fly 24/7 (possibly the only thing you can fly) then you would see what everyone is talking about instead of ranting about how were so wrong.
lol if you can fly a 38... you can fly pretty much anything in AH successfully.
-
lol if you can fly a 38... you can fly pretty much anything in AH successfully.
Yet he chooses not to for some excuse.... :lol
-
LOL, but yet it blows wings off in 3 pieces in 1 shot.........
in the 100s of hours Ive spent flying hispano armed planes I have never once seen a single 20mm round "blow a plane into thousands of pieces" or "blow wings off in 3 pieces" unless its been badly damaged beforehand.
-
@AKAK- BTW, your so-called "whiners/wrong people" that are complaining about the same thing, I see that you have all the time in world to be on the forums, why not make time to fly other planes in AH and get out of your 38 that you fly 24/7 (possibly the only thing you can fly) then you would see what everyone is talking about instead of ranting about how were so wrong.
what does the fact I enjoy to fly the P-38 have to do with you being incorrect?
ack-ack
-
Don't ever do an inverted -2.5 g push with a passenger aboard, they tend not to appreciate it.
Had a friend in the back seat who was enjoy the acro. Decided to do a 4 point roll but slowly added the rudder in after the 1st quarter so i didn't bounce his head off the side of the canopy. This caused my nose to be slightly lower then normal, which I had to correct for in the inverted to continue the maneuver. Was just a normal quick correction. When the maneuver was complete I glanced down saw the g meter at -2.5, I really hadn't felt it because when you are preforming the maneuver you prep for it. It really sucked for the guy in back, I apologized profusely.
HiTech
LMAO, well I guess now that passenger can proudly say that he pulled -2.5Gs.
-
LOL, but yet it blows wings off in 3 pieces in 1 shot.........
I really don't think you know what the heck you're talking about.
a single 20mm doesn't atomize a plane, but it can quite easily KILL THE PILOT. Pilot gone = plane must go too, so the end result is a fireball.
A single hit does not blow your wing off. However a solid burst with multiple bullets all hitting the same area will do so in short order.
"Flash" mark sprites can also represent "bursts" rather than individual bullets.
Proving a bug in a tank's armor is one thing. Proving the system is screwed up? No. You've merely pointed out a bug. Now that the bug is dealt with it functions as it should. Same with bugs where damage on the left side of a plane showed up on the right side, and other "bugs" -- i.e. unintential code problems. Your claim, however, is that the entire system is broken, based on your reporting 1 bug? Well the bug got fixed? Does that mean the entire system is fixed now?
-
what does the fact I enjoy to fly the P-38 have to do with you being incorrect?
ack-ack
The fact that all you do is fly is 38, how do you know how other planes handle in AH when you don't fly them? A lot of old sticks that are coming back are used to the old settings, don't like the changes, and some are complaining about them. Just because you read info and listen to what Hitech says doesn't mean it's 100% correctly modeled in game.
-
a single 20mm doesn't atomize a plane
A single hit does not blow your wing off.
I've got tons of videos of Hispano 20mm rounds 1 shoting my wing, my tail and my engine from over 600 yrds out, like i have said before it's not a 5 inch gun. That M4's hull has been overmodeled since the day they added it, and it took HTC a year and a half to finally look into it and barely fix it when I told them a long time ago?! The Hispanos barely started acting like this, not before did I have a problem with them or see it 1 shot my wing. If only I didn't have a problem loading them up to mediafire, I could put them up.
-
in the 100s of hours Ive spent flying hispano armed planes I have never once seen a single 20mm round "blow a plane into thousands of pieces" or "blow wings off in 3 pieces" unless its been badly damaged beforehand.
Well I have, and I wasn't shot up. I saw in film viewer it wasn't a bunch of pings off my wing, just saw/heard 1 ping and my wings snaps into 3 pieces or hits my tail from a deflection shot and rips my tail completely off.
-
The fact that all you do is fly is 38, how do you know how other planes handle in AH when you don't fly them? A lot of old sticks that are coming back are used to the old settings, don't like the changes, and some are complaining about them. Just because you read info and listen to what Hitech says doesn't mean it's 100% correctly modeled in game.
I've flown every single plane in this game extensively and can fly them far better than you will ever be able to in this game. Again, what does the choice of my plane have to do with you being incorrect?
ack-ack
-
Well I have, and I wasn't shot up. I saw in film viewer it wasn't a bunch of pings off my wing, just saw/heard 1 ping and my wings snaps into 3 pieces or hits my tail from a deflection shot and rips my tail completely off.
Sounds like lag.
-
Sounds like lag.
that would explain it seeming that the 20mms can one-shot a wing off.
-
Well I have, and I wasn't shot up. I saw in film viewer it wasn't a bunch of pings off my wing, just saw/heard 1 ping and my wings snaps into 3 pieces or hits my tail from a deflection shot and rips my tail completely off.
If it was the FIRST SHOT ? That's an extremely lucky shot! The wing breaking into 3 pieces would tend to indicate high speed and ? some sort of manuvering ? Break Turn ? Snap Roll ? and the loading on the wing could easily cause it to disintegrate.
One 20mm explosive round on a wing spar is definately sufficient to seperate the wing on ? any fighter. Thru a fuel tank it will likely blow the plane. And as someone else mentioned 1 hit flash MAY = several rounds impacting.
On the other hand, planes sometimes withstand extreme damage, I recently returned a 190A-5 to base with BOTH wingtips shot off and a LOT of control damage too ... flew it almost a full sector like that ... didn't trust myself to LAND it (very wobbly and HARD to correct) so I bailed, but avoided capture ... I have in the past landed a 110 with the entire RH rudder and elevator missing ...
Getting knocked down is a bummer, but it happens to everyone FREQUENTLY. Suck it up and move on, this game seems to manage DAMAGE with more detail than most. :airplane:
-
I know Thrash from the DA and he does have a severe reaction when he gets shot by a Spitfire. Hispanophylaxis I believe :old:
-
I know Thrash from the DA and he does have a severe reaction when he gets shot by a Spitfire. Hispanophylaxis I believe :old:
If you want to make his head explode, fly a Spitfire Mk XVI to shoot him down.
ack-ack
-
Hispanophylaxis
:rofl
-
The only way any aircraft loses a wing or tail to a single hit from a Hispano Mk II is if it had already taken damage there. Period.
The Hispano Mk II does not, even at point blank range, do enough damage points to exceed the damage hit points of any aircraft that I know of in AH.
If you claim otherwise you are lying.
-
He might mean when you get the lucky golden bb, and get a pilot kill with a single round, which can cause (or used to cause, at any rate) the plane to explode.
-
He might mean when you get the lucky golden bb, and get a pilot kill with a single round, which can cause (or used to cause, at any rate) the plane to explode.
No, he is talking about taking wings and tails off with a single 20mm hit. Any gun, even a .303 can one shot the pilot if lucky.
-
Hey guys, how about we try to engage the Developer in a conversation about the awful modelling that allows planes to pull incredible moves without any adverse effect on the pilot.
Or we could just try to prove each other wrong and get absolutely nowhere.
-
the G modelling seems ok to me but some people seem to think your heads going to explode if you pull -2G for 2 seconds.
do you know long a trained fighter pilot can withstand sustained 3G, 6G, 9G, 12G, 15G etc? and exactly how many Gs and for exactly how long you're pulling them during a fight? someone posted the numbers here, search for them you'll be surprised.
-
I've flown every single plane in this game extensively and can fly them far better than you will ever be able to in this game.
Sounds like you have no social life... :lol
-
Sounds like you have no social life... :lol
Says the guy that felt the need to do some research because he heard something quite clearly false on the history channel.
-
the G modelling seems ok to me but some people seem to think your heads going to explode if you pull -2G for 2 seconds.
do you know long a trained fighter pilot can withstand sustained 3G, 6G, 9G, 12G, 15G etc? and exactly how many Gs and for exactly how long you're pulling them during a fight? someone posted the numbers here, search for them you'll be surprised.
O.K. I just went to the DA for a little testing of my own.
I grabbed a Spit16 and headed into a shallow dive. I yanked back on the stick and instantly pegged the accelerometer. This set me at +9+ G's.
I then immediately pushed forward on the stick. This pegged the gauge at -4+ G's.
What I'm saying is that there was an instantaneous swing of more than 15 G's (from + to - ). There was no ill effects on either pilot or aircraft.
I find this a bit hard to believe. Of course I could be wrong.
EDIT: WHOA! Crappy math alert!!! I meant to say the swing was 13 G's not 15. I can see my argument being torn to shreds rapidly. :lol
-
What I'm saying is that there was an instantaneous swing of more than 15 G's (from + to - ). There was no ill effects on either pilot or aircraft.
hitech stated a few years ago that the lack of adverse effects on the pilot due to extreme maneuvering is in place for game play reasons, that's why we don't suffer from negative effects from G and negative Gs other than black/red outs.
ack-ack
-
hitech stated a few years ago that the lack of adverse effects on the pilot due to extreme maneuvering is in place for game play reasons, that's why we don't suffer from negative effects from G and negative Gs other than black/red outs.
ack-ack
So in essence we're just going to have to live with the "flopping fish" Spitfires, no matter how gamey and unrealistic it is?
If that's the official word I can accept it. That doesn't mean I have to like it.
-
So in essence we're just going to have to live with the "flopping fish" Spitfires, no matter how gamey and unrealistic it is?
Yep, just like we have to live with the coddling auto-retracting flaps.
ack-ack
-
O.K. I just went to the DA for a little testing of my own.
etc...
and you're comparing your results to ... what? :headscratch:
-
Yep, just like we have to live with the coddling auto-retracting flaps.
ack-ack
Ohh, I hate those too.
and you're comparing your results to ... what? :headscratch:
I was just wondering A) How great is the swing in G's that can occur and B) How quickly can someone go from Full positive G's to full negative G's.
What I found was a swing of ~13 G's almost instantaneously. In my uneducated opinion, this could not only be harmful to the pilot but to the airframe as well.
I envision pilots having their heads bounced off of the canopy and other in-cockpit objects.
It's entirely possible that real life pilots have VERY strong necks though. :lol
-
he heard something quite clearly false on the history channel.
Says the guy who can't learn to read....Since when did I ever say I got my research off the history channel?
-
centrifuge data (flying limits are a little higher)
(http://aeromedical.org/Articles/graphics/g-loc1.gif)
http://aeromedical.org/Articles/g-loc.html (http://aeromedical.org/Articles/g-loc.html)
its also worth noting that a couple of AHers who have flown and taught modern fighter jets for a living think the G-LOC modelling is about right ...
-
Says the guy who can't learn to read....Since when did I ever say I got my research off the history channel?
You're right, sorry, I have you confused with someone else who refuses to try to learn how the game works. It was 4brkfast I was thinking of.
-
centrifuge data (flying limits are a little higher)
(http://aeromedical.org/Articles/graphics/g-loc1.gif)
http://aeromedical.org/Articles/g-loc.html (http://aeromedical.org/Articles/g-loc.html)
its also worth noting that a couple of AHers who have flown and taught modern fighter jets for a living think the G-LOC modelling is about right ...
Yeah, it wasn't really G-LOC that I was thinking of though.
I was thinking more along the lines of whiplash or blunt force trauma to the head type injuries.
-
I envision pilots having their heads bounced off of the canopy and other in-cockpit objects.
Pilots are strapped in. There should no contact with the canopy on negative G's.
I do agree that violent stick stirring is gamey and would be disorienting.
-
I'm sure that if any of you were being shot at you'd quickly change your mind about appropriate control inputs. :D
Neg G is more of a problem after prolonged high G not after momentary high G.
Stick stirring is limited by game code. It locks your controls. Internet lag makes things look funny.
-
Stick stirring is limited by game code. It locks your controls. Internet lag makes things look funny.
mmmmm......I don't think any amount of 'lag makes things look funny' can excuse some of the totally ridiculous stuff I've seen doras and spit16s pull after getting on their six
btw just to be clear I don't have any strong feelings regarding this debate on pulling Gs.......if it's not totally realistic I can appreciate HiTech probably has some good reasons for that. So I'm not angling for a change to be made in any way.
I just wanted to say, in my ever so humble and inexperienced opinion, the flopping that a pilot truly dedicated to lameness can achieve (in some planes) in order to save their virtual skin, is completely absurd and can't be explained away by lag.
Can't post anything to support this as I never save the films of those kind of awful wobblers, because I'm usually so frustrated that they've got away that I hit cancel, or I don't want to know what their name was because I wouldn't be able to resist abusing them via .p ;)
-
mmmmm......I don't think any amount of 'lag makes things look funny' can excuse some of the totally ridiculous stuff I've seen doras and spit16s pull after getting on their six
btw just to be clear I don't have any strong feelings regarding this debate on pulling Gs.......if it's not totally realistic I can appreciate HiTech probably has some good reasons for that. So I'm not angling for a change to be made in any way.
I just wanted to say, in my ever so humble and inexperienced opinion, the flopping that a pilot truly dedicated to lameness can achieve (in some planes) in order to save their virtual skin, is completely absurd and can't be explained away by lag.
Can't post anything to support this as I never save the films of those kind of awful wobblers, because I'm usually so frustrated that they've got away that I hit cancel, or I don't want to know what their name was because I wouldn't be able to resist abusing them via .p ;)
You seem to be talking about your emotions instead of aeronautics or flight modeling. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :)
-
I'll happily admit I'm no expert :) But when you come across a dedicated d9 wobbler yourself, I'm sure you will understand what I'm saying.
-
I've actually seen one or two. It's called jinking. :D
-
Hmm well I like to think I have seen, and know, what jinking to stay out of your opponents guns is...and it's not the same thing as what I mean
:joystick:
Happily it's not too common (for me at least) to run into these kind of 'pilots'
-
It looks different when your target has more net lag than usual.
-
Pilots are strapped in. There should no contact with the canopy on negative G's.
Not quite. Pilots wore their harnesses loosely, so that they could move around a bit within the cockpit in order to see behind them. Neg G's would certainly raise the pilot up in the seat quite a bit, I've read a few episodes where pilots of early Bf-110's complained about the quality of the materials used in the canopy as they had put their heads through the roof of the canopy during negative g events.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZOb0vx9y9I
This is one of the best video's I've seen yet with gun cams. Want to see how a 190 actually flies? Skip to 6 minutes in. It's a circle turn fight vs a p47. And the 190 is OUT-TURNING it in a prolonged, extended fight, also you will see a solid burst hit a wing root of a p47(enough hits to argue in AH2 the p47 loses a wing). You can conclude, seeing as the later 190's had at least 2 cannons and 2 13mm that the p47's toughness is actually under modeled.
The 190 isn't correct. Nor is the 109. Hans-Joachim Marseille was reported to get kills with high deflection shooting using the flaps. Can't do that in here, much less see out of the front of a 109 like you could.
I love the P47 personally, but it's wrong, at least vs a 190(btw, look at the 190A8 charts. With 4 20mm's and 2 13mm it's weight at 100% fuel was 4400KG. Compare that to the game).
The excessive use of negative G's is frankly a laugh riot. I've seen a great deal of excessive exploitation of this flaw, particularly in a spitfire and other late war planes.
The spitfire turns better than a 109 because of it's higher wing surface ratio to fuselage and weight and the affects on the pilot would be greater because of this in a spitfire.
Which part is wrong here?
And what is there to really understand about this game? It is the way it is so people that don't understand basic flight can play, I understand that, but you can't have it both ways. It's inaccurate, therefore, it's not a simulator.
Go look at a p38 speed and climb chart ack-ack. Frankly you disappoint me with how you responded. I expected better from a person like you, dismissive and pompous. Yes, you were esteemed in my eyes.
I was told by a couple well-known people, thrash isn't one of them, that I was wasting my time posting this stuff. That the propaganda of this game has been around too long. I see now that they're right.
wwiiaircraftperformance.org
I will never understand the point of making these planes inaccurate, to make the allied planes better than they were and the axis planes more difficult and under modeled and in some cases just flat out wrong.
Look at the stuff provided, or don't. I don't really care anymore. :)
<S>
-
Looking forward to your development of a better flight sim than AH :rolleyes:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZOb0vx9y9I
This is one of the best video's I've seen yet with gun cams. Want to see how a 190 actually flies? Skip to 6 minutes in. It's a circle turn fight vs a p47. And the 190 is OUT-TURNING it in a prolonged, extended fight, also you will see a solid burst hit a wing root of a p47(enough hits to argue in AH2 the p47 loses a wing). You can conclude, seeing as the later 190's had at least 2 cannons and 2 13mm that the p47's toughness is actually under modeled.
What were the E states of those two fighters? What were their fuel loads? What were their exact models? What were the respective pilot's skill levels? What were the angles before the gun camera starts?
Unless you can answer those questions the video tells you pretty much nothing.
The 190 isn't correct. Nor is the 109. Hans-Joachim Marseille was reported to get kills with high deflection shooting using the flaps. Can't do that in here, much less see out of the front of a 109 like you could.
Oh really? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9YVei2Yb_k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9YVei2Yb_k)
The Bf109 had a very cramped cockpit, even compared to a Spitfire.
I love the P47 personally, but it's wrong, at least vs a 190(btw, look at the 190A8 charts. With 4 20mm's and 2 13mm it's weight at 100% fuel was 4400KG. Compare that to the game).
It does seem that the Fw190A-8 in AH is over weight. It would be nice to see that resolved.
The excessive use of negative G's is frankly a laugh riot. I've seen a great deal of excessive exploitation of this flaw, particularly in a spitfire and other late war planes.
It is gamey, but I still don't understand how Spitfires relate to it.
The spitfire turns better than a 109 because of it's higher wing surface ratio to fuselage and weight and the affects on the pilot would be greater because of this in a spitfire.
Which part is wrong here?
Erm, almost all of it. 5 Gs is 5 Gs, it doesn't matter at all how big or small your wing is. If the Spitfire is doing a 5 G turn on the tail of a Bf109 that is doing a 5 G turn, then both pilots will be feeling 5 Gs. If the Spitfire is able to turn tighter to try to cut the Bf109's turn, it will be pulling more Gs. That is exactly how it works in AH.
How do you think it works?
And what is there to really understand about this game? It is the way it is so people that don't understand basic flight can play, I understand that, but you can't have it both ways. It's inaccurate, therefore, it's not a simulator.
Given that you don't understand basic flight as demonstrated above, what makes you qualified to say that?
I was told by a couple well-known people, thrash isn't one of them, that I was wasting my time posting this stuff. That the propaganda of this game has been around too long. I see now that they're right.
Nonsense. Many changes have been made based on data brought by players. The Bf109's motor cannon ammo was increased and the Ki-84's roll rate was increased, as examples of Axis aircraft that have benefited, based on player submitted data.
wwiiaircraftperformance.org
Great source.
I will never understand the point of making these planes inaccurate, to make the allied planes better than they were and the axis planes more difficult and under modeled and in some cases just flat out wrong.
They don't. If they did do you think they'd set it up so that the vaunted P-51D was lunchmeat for the Bf109K-4?
-
You're right, sorry, I have you confused with someone else who refuses to try to learn how the game works. It was 4brkfast I was thinking of.
Actually, you weren't far off the mark. THRASH99 uses YouTube.
ack-ack
-
And what is there to really understand about this game? It is the way it is so people that don't understand basic flight can play, I understand that, but you can't have it both ways. It's inaccurate, therefore, it's not a simulator.
Go look at a p38 speed and climb chart ack-ack. Frankly you disappoint me with how you responded. I expected better from a person like you, dismissive and pompous. Yes, you were esteemed in my eyes.
What is wrong with the P-38 speed and climb rate? HTC has it modeled pretty good in game, unless you have definitive proof it's incorrect (which you don't). I'm sorry that you expected me to support your misconceptions but when a person is incorrect I am not shy in telling that person they are incorrect.
ack-ack
-
Lol AKAK, really? Oh thats too funny :rofl!
And brkfast, theres really very few inaccurate things about the game, at most you get things that seem maybe a little.... off, but not nessicarily wrong. Usually, thats just due to the virtual enviornment not being a perfect recreation of the real world.
-
[more nonsense]
I was told by a couple well-known people, thrash isn't one of them, that I was wasting my time posting this stuff. That the propaganda of this game has been around too long. I see now that they're right.
well its a waste of time if you're not going to bother reading and understanding the responses to your spurious claims.
-
Brkfast, if you really think Aces High sucks so much why are you here?
You said Il-2 is a lot better.
-
The 190 isn't correct. Nor is the 109.
And what is there to really understand about this game? It is the way it is so people that don't understand basic flight can play, I understand that, but you can't have it both ways. It's inaccurate, therefore, it's not a simulator.
wasting my time posting this stuff. That the propaganda of this game has been around too long. I see now that they're right.
I will never understand the point of making these planes inaccurate
1st I don't think you were wasting your time ... Insight is where you find it ... I found some here. I think the game -IS- a COMBAT SIMULATOR, the plane models may not be perfect but they are close. Given the limitations imposed by computer / bandwidth requirements, game balance / playability, multi-mission capability, and other considerations, I think they've done a remarkable job. I played Airwarrior on a 486 with a 4M Grapics card ... things have come a LONG WAY since then ! :airplane:
-
wwiiaircraftperformance.org? Isnt' that Kurfy's site?
Just as an FYI to others that are more receptive than 4brkfast, there's a few folks out there that have been laughed off of these forums and categorically disproven on technical matters. Yet, they harbor a long-smoldering grudge that the game isn't coded the way they narrowly perceive things. Hell, one bastion of festering discontent led to a forum where folks actively condoned and congratulated the people that developed some AH cheats (long since discovered by HTC and are now monitored for). Don't take any nasty commentary you might find about AH and condemn the game. Chances are you have run into one of these very polarized factions.
Say what you will about the game, it brings out the passions in folks. Sometimes too much so.
As for the youtube clip, you can actually learn quite a bit from it. You simply can't draw the conclusion that 4brk made, though. It's a high speed high G spiraling dive. You can tell from the condensation trails from pulling high sustained Gs. You don't get that at slow speed stall fights. Further, any time the video cuts it means the guns stopped firing for a while, and when the trigger is pulled it starts up again. 4brk seems to be taking it as a single continuous feed. That's not the case. The P-47 is on the film but then drifts off. You see a small jump-cut and it wanders back into frame. That's a different point in the fight when the guns were fired. Any number of minutes, manuvers, and sweating/cursing could have happened on both sides of the fight between these 2 cuts. It happens a few times. There's no way of telling what was pulled in this missing footage. Perhaps the 190 pilot yo-yoed up for a better position then saddled up again? Perhaps anything happened.
Also, it was all of 1 or 2 rounds that hit the wing. Hardly what you would argue in AH would rip a jug's wings off. As a regular 190 and 109 pilot in AH and a killer of many P-47s I can tell you for sure they are VERY strong. They soak up tons of fire.
Many spurious claims here, none really backed up. I think it's a massive misunderstanding on 4brk's side, and his ear being filled with nasty commentary by some folks who can't find an audience otherwise.
-
wwiiaircraftperformance.org? Isnt' that Kurfy's site?
Erm, no, not in the slightest. That is the one that started as "www.spitfireperformance.org", the one with all the scans of primary source documents.
-
I wonder if HTC might be able to curb most (all?) of the whining if they were to just model the game based on that site, regardless of whether they've got better data or not. Seems like most of the people who believe the game to be inaccurate use that as their primary source.
Wiley.
-
I wonder if HTC might be able to curb most (all?) of the whining if they were to just model the game based on that site, regardless of whether they've got better data or not. Seems like most of the people who believe the game to be inaccurate use that as their primary source.
Wiley.
A lot of the game is modeled on data that can be found on that site.
I don't think German fans would be happy though. Spitfire Mk XIV's that turn as well as Spitfire Mk IXs?
-
The most ridiculous thing in this game, any my only real gripe is the half winged planes flying around. I just can't imagine a real WWII plane landing with the damage some of ours take. IIRC there is no effect on the flight of the plane, do to damage (drag etc...). That would be where I would like tot see the improvement. At the same time I can't say it would improve play at all. Neither can I do the math to say that an LA7 has enough wing area and control surface to sustain level flight with 3/4 of a wing.
-
The most ridiculous thing in this game, any my only real gripe is the half winged planes flying around. I just can't imagine a real WWII plane landing with the damage some of ours take. IIRC there is no effect on the flight of the plane, do to damage (drag etc...). That would be where I would like tot see the improvement. At the same time I can't say it would improve play at all. Neither can I do the math to say that an LA7 has enough wing area and control surface to sustain level flight with 3/4 of a wing.
My understanding of this is that the visual damage does not match the lost lift points in the flight model. In other words, the flight model is working with a wing that lost a smaller bit of its tip than what is shown graphically.
-
IIRC there is no effect on the flight of the plane, do to damage (drag etc...).
YDNRC. Depending on the plane and what else is missing as well as what your attitude/speed is when it happens. It ranges from 'somewhat controllable as long as you don't do anything too extreme' to uncontrollable. Twin engine stuff can stop the opposite engine and have pretty good control, if slow. Also, what Karnak said.
Karnak- I'm sure it is, but it seems a lot of the time when someone disagrees with the FM, it's because that was the first page that came up in google with official looking stuff. My (somewhat tongue in cheek) point was, matching the game to the first thing that comes up in Google would negate a lot of the arguing because that's the extent of some of the 'research' people do.
Wiley.
-
The most ridiculous thing in this game, any my only real gripe is the half winged planes flying around. I just can't imagine a real WWII plane landing with the damage some of ours take. IIRC there is no effect on the flight of the plane, do to damage (drag etc...). That would be where I would like tot see the improvement. At the same time I can't say it would improve play at all. Neither can I do the math to say that an LA7 has enough wing area and control surface to sustain level flight with 3/4 of a wing.
And then again:
(http://www.militarymodelling.com/sites/1/images/member_albums/38300/damaged.jpg)
-
Great Pic :aok
I hope those guys made it. I may post a film from a LA7 earlier to highlight my point.
-
Karnak: Some folks put the idea out that the loss of lift was modeled, but not the loss of WEIGHT for that wing, hence the very strong (and almost uncontrollable in some planes) roll to the missing wing.
I personally put forth that HTC doesn't properly model the jagged gaping shredded hole causing massive drag that would compensate for the loss in parasitic drag. My beef is that when you lose a part you gain 50mph.
In Rangoon I was winging with a 110C that lost one stabilizer. I think just the vertical stab on the port side but I'd have to check -- it may have included the corresponding h-stab with it. I was intact. He was going so fast on milpow I had to WEP to keep up with him! I could not fly formation with him! Edit: And I mean he was walking away from me like I was standing still!
That's just not right. There's too much of a benefit from losing parts, speed-wise. Outside of that I think they do take a lot into consideration and that the damage model is pretty fun. I have landed many a super-shot-up plane and hope to continue doing so.
-
I wonder if HTC might be able to curb most (all?) of the whining if they were to just model the game based on that site, regardless of whether they've got better data or not. Seems like most of the people who believe the game to be inaccurate use that as their primary source.
Wiley.
What makes you think that anything at wwiiaircraftperformance.org is incompatible with the current Aces High flight modeling?
Karnak: Some folks put the idea out that the loss of lift was modeled, but not the loss of WEIGHT for that wing, hence the very strong (and almost uncontrollable in some planes) roll to the missing wing.
I personally put forth that HTC doesn't properly model the jagged gaping shredded hole causing massive drag that would compensate for the loss in parasitic drag. My beef is that when you lose a part you gain 50mph.
In Rangoon I was winging with a 110C that lost one stabilizer. I think just the vertical stab on the port side but I'd have to check -- it may have included the corresponding h-stab with it. I was intact. He was going so fast on milpow I had to WEP to keep up with him! I could not fly formation with him! Edit: And I mean he was walking away from me like I was standing still!
That's just not right. There's too much of a benefit from losing parts, speed-wise. Outside of that I think they do take a lot into consideration and that the damage model is pretty fun. I have landed many a super-shot-up plane and hope to continue doing so.
Krusty you know high wing loading and high speed go together. Breaking off half a wing increases the wing loading. :devil
-
http://www.2shared.com/file/gzKIQLrA/bone_HO.html
Watch the LA7 at the beginning of this film. What troubles me is he makes it past perpendicular to the 1/2 wing side, and is still able to recover, despite being at 50 feet or so.
-
http://www.2shared.com/file/gzKIQLrA/bone_HO.html
Watch the LA7 at the beginning of this film. What troubles me is he makes it past perpendicular to the 1/2 wing side, and is still able to recover, despite being at 50 feet or so.
Why is that troubling?
-
Well, my only flying experience is lots of RC stuff and from what I have seen, to make that sort of correction I lose lift on the opposite side of of the plane without increasing lift to compensate. This should cause a drop in altitude. In this film, the LA snaps and rolls and recovers at very slow speeds. Look, I am a layman here and I know there are tons of aero guys (I am a geotechnical engineer). I would love to understand the math behind this LA thing... can you help me out FLS.