Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Arlo on April 25, 2013, 04:58:16 PM
-
How interesting would it be if pilots suffered from hypoxia above 10k if they didn't turn on oxygen and if an oxygen system was incorporated into systems that could be damaged, either requiring staying at a certain altitude or diving back to a certain altitude?
Hm.
*ShruG*
-
I think that would be cool for scenarios or some special event. I have mixed feelings regarding MA
-
I think that would be cool for scenarios or some special event. I have mixed feelings regarding MA
Three words: fewer alt monkeys? :D
-
Three words: fewer alt monkeys? :D
hmm yes but the planes I fly were made for hi alt :D
(K4, Ta-152) an I'm a proud astronaut :banana:
not my fualt they aren't at my alt :devil
-
hmm yes but the planes I fly were made for hi alt :D
(K4, Ta-152) an I'm a proud astronaut :banana:
not my fualt they aren't at my alt :devil
Astronauts need oxygen. ;)
Don't get an oxygen hit. Don't run out. Problem solved. :aok
-
All are fine points but...but...I don't have a decent counter argumeant.
By the way, the altitude would have to be around 15k. I've gone skydiving and drop alt was 14k. We didn't have oxygen when leveling out and transiting to drop co-ords IMO
-
All are fine points but...but...I don't have a decent counter argumeant.
By the way, the altitude would have to be around 15k. I've gone skydiving and drop alt was 14k. We didn't have oxygen when leveling out and transiting to drop co-ords IMO
It depends on how long you're that high.
http://www.m0a.com/faa-oxygen-requirements/
http://www.c-f-c.com/supportdocs/abo4.htm
http://www.ifr-magazine.com/oxygen-and-hypoxemia.html
-
Touché :salute
ok ok ok you get a +1 across the board :D
-
Perk the O2 tank
-
Perk the O2 tank
:rofl
-
Perk the O2 tank
:lol
-
if this gets added, pretty soon the conspiracy guys will start that it doesnt work properly on any german rides :noid.
semp
-
if this gets added, pretty soon the conspiracy guys will start that it doesnt work properly on any german rides :noid.
semp
I secretly wish that to happen :banana:
-
Very good idea, this should have been around in AH from day one. Ht added wind to make it harder to bomb, then should have 02 in fighters (and bombers) so alt monkeys have something to worry about. Burn rate of 2 just like fuel
-
some hodrods of ww2 required oxygen to be used with engine on, because of poisonous gases leaking into cockpit
-
some hodrods of ww2 required oxygen to be used with engine on, because of poisonous gases leaking into cockpit
Typhoon, La-5FN. Tempest, La-7?
-
Very good idea, this should have been around in AH from day one. Ht added wind to make it harder to bomb, then should have 02 in fighters (and bombers) so alt monkeys have something to worry about. Burn rate of 2 just like fuel
Dint bring asteonuats inti this! Best fights start at 30k and go to the deck.
-
Dint bring asteonuats inti this! Best fights start at 30k and go to the deck.
And go to the deck? You diving after or away? Lack of energy management. Why not just start on the deck, in that case. You'll get more fights more often.
-
And go to the deck? You diving after or away? Lack of energy management. Why not just start on the deck, in that case. You'll get more fights more often.
I'm talking the rare fights were no one can on the otherones 6.
I havenp problem tho in an extended chase tho.
-
Tiff especially. And are they like hotrods?
-
+1
It would be great for the 35K bombers to have something that could force them to drop altitude, and it would also apply to fighters. :banana:
-
+1
It would be great for the 35K bombers to have something that could force them to drop altitude
Cockpit hits and fuel fires do work marvels on them, they don't keep alt for long after that :devil
-
Cockpit hits and fuel fires do work marvels on them, they don't keep alt for long after that :devil
Ahhhh ..... the oxygen system being disabled will not replace either. :D
-
I like this idea, particularly if it is incorporated as a system that can be damaged or destroyed. Forcing pilots with blown away o2 tanks to drop under 12 or 10k or whatever the altitude for "safe" flying is without a mask would be a good addition.
-
Just another way to start a fire. One explosive cannon shell into an O2 bottle and game over.
Pilots breathing O2? Too funny. Most believing in this suggestion are breathing complex micro-carbons already.
-
I can cut and paste hundreds of excerpts from various WW2 books where oxygen tanks were used, and probably a dozen or so that refer to precisely what you're saying Chalenge, that the bottle explode when struck by large caliber rounds. In fact, there is a quote I'm looking for right now from a top scoring L/W ace claiming he actually aimed for the "oxygen bottles and cockpit" of his targets. There was also a P38 pilot, it was either McGuire or maybe Bong who told his students during gunnery lectures to actually aim for the oxygen bottles on the Japanese targets as the resulting ka-boom was a enough to kill the pilot and often the plane. Considering this, I don't see why anyone would be so quick to dismiss and insult somebody's idea.
If we have fuel tanks that are vulnerable and catch fire, why not the O2 bottles as well? I know from the P51 pilots manual of my class mate from high school's P51 he owns (vintage wings Canada), it states clearly on the pages I read about the oxygen system that there are 2 different types of O2 bottles carried on board, and I think it was either 2 or 3 of each type. The total air carried when in the bottles was over 3000 cu inches, well over 6 hours, and up to 10 or more at certain altitudes, as well as a ten or so minute reserve. That's a lot of extra little targets that are very vulnerable to exploding like you said, or starting fires at the very least in larger planes like bombers and such.
-
Hmm an even more realistic game. +1 again
-
I can cut and paste hundreds of excerpts from various WW2 books where oxygen tanks were used, and probably a dozen or so that refer to precisely what you're saying Chalenge, that the bottle explode when struck by large caliber rounds. In fact, there is a quote I'm looking for right now from a top scoring L/W ace claiming he actually aimed for the "oxygen bottles and cockpit" of his targets. There was also a P38 pilot, it was either McGuire or maybe Bong who told his students during gunnery lectures to actually aim for the oxygen bottles on the Japanese targets as the resulting ka-boom was a enough to kill the pilot and often the plane. Considering this, I don't see why anyone would be so quick to dismiss and insult somebody's idea.
If we have fuel tanks that are vulnerable and catch fire, why not the O2 bottles as well? I know from the P51 pilots manual of my class mate from high school's P51 he owns (vintage wings Canada), it states clearly on the pages I read about the oxygen system that there are 2 different types of O2 bottles carried on board, and I think it was either 2 or 3 of each type. The total air carried when in the bottles was over 3000 cu inches, well over 6 hours, and up to 10 or more at certain altitudes, as well as a ten or so minute reserve. That's a lot of extra little targets that are very vulnerable to exploding like you said, or starting fires at the very least in larger planes like bombers and such.
I understand Gman and that is not what I mean. This wish doesn't pass the #1 smell test of wishes. In other words, the wish presumes to force other players to fly in a manner more consistent with the wisher. Any wish that will cause any player to leave the game for instance, should never be granted. This wish smells to high heaven.
-
I understand Gman and that is not what I mean. This wish doesn't pass the #1 smell test of wishes. In other words, the wish presumes to force other players to fly in a manner more consistent with the wisher. Any wish that will cause any player to leave the game for instance, should never be granted. This wish smells to high heaven.
Not sure what you're smelling here. This wish does not force anyone to fly or act any differently than what their historic counterparts or they, as players, would prefer. This certainly isn't the equivalent of turning off enemy icons. In other words, one may fly to the ceiling their aircraft allows, fight opponents there if they chose to fly likewise, dive on lower opponents and zoom back heavenward. The only change it would make is their need to keystroke masking up and breathing via an oxygen system when their altimeter hits a certain number or experience whatever HT codes to mimic hypoxia if they forget or choose (foe whatever odd reason) not to. That and the potential need to drop altitude if they take a hit and the randomizer (no matter how slim a chance) indicates that the flow of oxygen to pilot and/or crew has been interrupted (without a fiery explosion taking them all out).
This is not recommended as a simulated experience nobody would dare chance. I think what you thought you smelled was my 'sell' of this in a following post that didn't sit well with you. :D
-
"The oxygen supply is from a low-pressure system with a new American demand valve. During the trials this was not entirely satisfactory, and the majority of flying was limited to 30,000 feet as the flow above this height was unreliable; it is understood that a modified valve system is soon to be available. There is an aneroid control which relieves the pilot of the necessity of increasing the flow with altitude, and an indicator on the dashboard to show the oxygen delivery as each breath is taken. In an emergency the pilot can obtain pure oxygen, in which case the total amount takes 45 minutes to consume."
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47c-afdu.html
"It is believed that the Combat Air Patrol should be placed at such an altitude that the pilots are not required to use oxygen while on patrol. It is felt that 10,000 feet is a satisfactory altitude, for from there they can be vectored out satisfactorily to intercept either low or high flying bogies. It has the additional advantage of being less tiring on the pilot, as he is more comfortable at a lower altitude and is not inconvenienced by having to wear an oxygen mask. In addition, too much time is wasted in having a CAP come down from 18,000 feet by the controlling fighter director. A low flying bogey was picked up and part of the CAP had to be brought down to investigate. By the time they got down the bogey had disappeared off the screen. The Yorktown maintained her CAP at 10,000 feet and successfully intercepted all bogies except for the one mentioned above."
http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/wwii/mid7.htm
"The extremely high altitude required of a typical reconnaissance flight held other unique challenges. Prior to the war, very few pilots had any experience flying above 20,000 feet. [61] At 35,000 feet, the new reconnaissance pilot suddenly found himself trying to manipulate aircraft controls in a sub-arctic environment where the temperature could easily fall to 50 degrees below zero. Pilots often wore so many layers of clothing that they had to be hoisted into the aircraft by helpful ground crews. [62] Oxygen deprivation was another constant hazard of high altitude flight. Oxygen masks and filtration systems were very primitive in 1940, and hypoxia, a loss of consciousness or coherence due to oxygen deprivation, was a very real danger. [63] If the cold and altitude sickness weren’t enough, an even greater peril of high altitude missions was the condensation trail that could appear at any time behind the aircraft. A contrail sent an open invitation to enemy fighters. If an air predator could not climb to reconnaissance altitude in time to engage, it would certainly be waiting on the return flight. Reconnaissance pilots even attached mirrors to their canopies in order to spot the dreaded contrails and drop below condensation altitude as quickly as possible in order to dissipate the telltale white ribbon dragging behind the aircraft. [64] "
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/airrecon.aspx
Having referenced such .... is modeling oxygen systems and hypoxia necessary to the game? Mnoooo. Should it be implemented in the Main if it's implemented in AvA or for events? Probably not. Is it something that HTC could possibly model without an extreme amount of effort? I'm of the opinion that this may be one of the easier requests but ... honestly .... until I have the skill or opportunity to fill those shoes - I really don't know. :D
-
. The only change it would make is their need to keystroke masking up and breathing via an oxygen system when their altimeter hits a certain number or experience whatever HT codes to mimic hypoxia if they forget or choose (foe whatever odd reason) not to.
And thisis why it'd unlikely it will ever happen. It would be just like the routine button presses that would come with "advanced engine management", wich we also don't have. We don't open or close cowler flaps, set magnetos or any of the other routine micro-management stuff.
Including it would be a radical (and quite surprising) depature from the very basic AH design philosophy.
-
And thisis why it'd unlikely it will ever happen. It would be just like the routine button presses that would come with "advanced engine management", wich we also don't have. We don't open or close cowler flaps, set magnetos or any of the other routine micro-management stuff.
Including it would be a radical (and quite surprising) depature from the very basic AH design philosophy.
So the actual keystroke isn't modeled then. Let's talk AH design philosophy from our particular perspectives.
"HiTech Creations was founded with a simple philosophy by Dale "HiTech" Addink in 1999. It's not to create a large corporation, a vast gaming network, or a line of online games. It's just to create one game, but one that is better than any other like it. Contrary to most companies, our goal is to keep the company small. We know that with a singular focus and an experienced cohesive team that enjoys its work, the production, service, support, and overall level of satisfaction will be unmatched."
Without the keystroke (aka 'micromanagement') and with the system modeled anyway, complete with effects a player may experience when the modeled system fails, how does this wish actually detract or fall contrary to the designer's vision?
Also, by your argument of 'simplification increases enjoyment' - why manually raise landing gear, adjust for gun convergence, etc? :D
-
Also, by your argument of 'simplification increases enjoyment' -
Where did I say that?
-
Where did I say that?
You don't see such inferred in "It would be just like the routine button presses that would come with "advanced engine management", wich we also don't have. We don't open or close cowler flaps, set magnetos or any of the other routine micro-management stuff."? Your argument appears to be, regarding, one of not modeling something if it takes away from the average players enjoyment and requires 'micromanaging.' You and I really aren't supporting opposing opinions, when it comes to that. Keystroke .... no keystroke ... I'm good with it. :D
-
You don't see such inferred in "It would be just like the routine button presses that would come with "advanced engine management", wich we also don't have. We don't open or close cowler flaps, set magnetos or any of the other routine micro-management stuff."?
No. Absolutely not.
I did not put any judgements in my statement. I didn't say it's good or bad, if it's a thing that increases enjoyment or not. I did not say if such stuff should be included or not.
I just pointed the fact that it would be a departure from the current design philosophy and voiced my opinion that for this very reason it's unlikely to happen-
That's all.
-
I just pointed the fact that it would be a departure from the current design philosophy and voiced my opinion that for this very reason it's unlikely to happen-
That's all.
You pointed out your opinion that it would be a departure from such then offered additional opinion of it's likelihood. I've yet to see the opinions fully supported but I was just anticipating that you were leading up to that .... eventually (I've seen your graphs and pie-charts). Even without such, everyone has an opinion and sometimes we reconsider them. Sometimes we don't. :aok We're good.
-
If it were implemented, and you were above 15K (arbitrary number for example) and your O2 was hit, I would envision a slow blackout, like the pilot wound, that you would not come out of until descending to a lower alt.
personally, I like the idea. I can also see a lot of people that would hate it.
my $0.02 :old:
LtngRydr
-
I don't see any opinion in Lusche's post. Just statement of fact based on HiTech's comments about complex engine management.
-
I don't see any opinion in Lusche's post. Just statement of fact based on HiTech's comments about complex engine management.
The discussion is not about complex engine management so that, in itself, pretty much makes any claim of 'fact' rather than opinion just a posturing tool. A keystroke to turn ox on and off is more akin to raising and lowering your landing gear or lowering and raising your flaps. Such would be negligible in complexity for the player. So the 'fact' becomes an opinion with questionable context. I even compromised the keystroke away, anyhow. *ShruG* :aok
-
I don't like the idea of taking on and off a O2 mask but something to cause a large explosion is a +1
Also one that affects altitude preformance would be something new....
-
+1
-
I like it. It would hurt me cause I like to buff hunt which usually involves autoclimb and then dropping the kids off at the pool. It would suck to come back and find a Payne Stewart pilot.
-
I like it. It would hurt me cause I like to buff hunt which usually involves autoclimb and then dropping the kids off at the pool. It would suck to come back and find a Payne Stewart pilot.
What hours/days do you usually fly and for what side? :lol ;)
-
Would this limit some air craft to lower altitudes if so then I'm against it.
-
What hours/days do you usually fly and for what side? :lol ;)
I take off from the rook side. Normally as near the front lines as I dare and head toward HQ looking for strat runners. I actually haven't done it for a while as the weather is getting better and I'm spending more time on the golf course.
-
I take off from the rook side. Normally as near the front lines as I dare and head toward HQ looking for strat runners. I actually haven't done it for a while as the weather is getting better and I'm spending more time on the golf course.
:aok :cheers:
-
Would this limit some air craft to lower altitudes if so then I'm against it.
Of course you're against having that FM2 limited to lower altitudes. :rofl
That being said I think I am going to have to -1 this as I feel it would add very little to the game and possibly be another thing to frustrate new players.
Give IL2: Cliffs of Dover a shot if you want to micro-manage everything on your aircraft. It's fun but much more difficult.
-
Would this limit some air craft to lower altitudes if so then I'm against it.
Possibly the Storch .... and maybe the C-47. Reckon everything else was designed with an oxy system. Even the I-16. :D
-
Of course you're against having that FM2 limited to lower altitudes. :rofl
That being said I think I am going to have to -1 this as I feel it would add very little to the game and possibly be another thing to frustrate new players.
Give IL2: Cliffs of Dover a shot if you want to micro-manage everything on your aircraft. It's fun but much more difficult.
Oxy on and off or oxy damage is much more difficult than gear/flaps up/down or damage? Huh. :lol
-
hmm yes but the planes I fly were made for hi alt
(K4, Ta-152) an I'm a proud astronaut :banana:
:huh :huh :huh :huh :huh :huh :huh
-
While I am against the oxygen being added as something requiring a key press to turn on or off, I think it would be nice as a damageable component with its associated effects. Would those effects would be reduced in the B-29A, Mosquito Mk XVI and Ta152H-1, all of which were pressurized or did they all depressurize when going into combat?
-
+1. And we have the correct pilot wound effects to simulate high-altitude sickness until they get below 10'000 ft. Adding Oxy systems as damagable is a brilliant!
Great idea Alro!
-
+1. And we have the correct pilot wound effects to simulate high-altitude sickness until they get below 10'000 ft. Adding Oxy systems as damagable is a brilliant!
Great idea Alro!
While I have your support.
Spanish Civil War! :D
-
While I am against the oxygen being added as something requiring a key press to turn on or off, I think it would be nice as a damageable component with its associated effects. Would those effects would be reduced in the B-29A, Mosquito Mk XVI and Ta152H-1, all of which were pressurized or did they all depressurize when going into combat?
I'm under the impression that most pressurised aircraft were depressurised when in combat, that being said I have read of B29's flying their whole mission fully pressurised. If the oxygen was a damageable component wouldn't it explode 9/10 times when hit? And if not, wouldn't ithe large hole in the fuselage, even if it didnt have an explosive effect, pretty much negate the ability of the aircraft to be pressurised?
-
I'm under the impression that most pressurised aircraft were depressurised when in combat, that being said I have read of B29's flying their whole mission fully pressurised. If the oxygen was a damageable component wouldn't it explode 9/10 times when hit? And if not, wouldn't ithe large hole in the fuselage, even if it didnt have an explosive effect, pretty much negate the ability of the aircraft to be pressurised?
That would depend on the location of the oxygen bottles and the pressurized compartment. Due to the size of the B-29's pressurized compartment it is likely that your statement is correct. The Mosquito Mk XVI had a smaller pressurized compartment and the Ta152H-1 a still smaller pressurized compartment. It is possible that their compartments might be separated enough from the oxygen to survive.
-
That would depend on the location of the oxygen bottles and the pressurized compartment. Due to the size of the B-29's pressurized compartment it is likely that your statement is correct. The Mosquito Mk XVI had a smaller pressurized compartment and the Ta152H-1 a still smaller pressurized compartment. It is possible that their compartments might be separated enough from the oxygen to survive.
:airplane: The question of "rapid decompressuzation" has long been one of discussion. 1 .50 cal bullet is not going to render a B-29 pressurization system in op! Our pratice had to do with where you were at and at what altitude. Above 15K, at least one crew member in each compartment had to be on oxygen at all times. This was usually traded out among those in that compartment, front or back. I used to fly a DC-6B to San Juan, hauling blue jeans for sewing and labels and all 3 of ours had been hit so many times with fork lifts, around the cargo doors, that after takeoff, the engineer would take wet paper towels and place in the holes around the cargo doors to stop the whistling and help pressurisation. We could hold a 8K altitude in cabin at 15k. Yes, and as towels dryed out and some would fall, the engineer would have to replace them. About all the engineers had to do anyway! LOL
-
While we are on the subject, why not allow bombs to take hits as well and explode?
-
Unarmed bombs exploding from taking hits? Rerferences and statistics?
-
Go ahead and add it. But, if you add this then please model all other systems so that the F4U is finally neutered to realistic levels. I think the automatic controls for the blower and engine management didn't come until the F4U-5? The same for the P-47s. Not just prop and rpm but also blower control, so we can see the noobs and dweebs kill themselves over our strats. And the F4U? You might as well model the CO2 fuel fire prevention system, but make sure to add the emergency gear blow-down bottle right next to it so that if they make that mistake they are stuck with gear down. And controls? Not just surfaces anymore, we should be able to shoot away the cockpit linkages from below, so these furballers get jammed controls and auger like their real world counterparts. Bomber turrets? Hydraulics off of one engine only. Kill that engine, kill all turrets. Gun chargers the same thing.
You could go on and on, so why stop at oxygen bottles? Let's turn the game into a true study simulation so there won't be anymore jumping from plane to plane without an actual pilots manual.
+1 I like it! :aok
-
Go ahead and add it. But, if you add this then please model all other systems so that the F4U is finally neutered to realistic levels. I think the automatic controls for the blower and engine management didn't come until the F4U-5? The same for the P-47s. Not just prop and rpm but also blower control, so we can see the noobs and dweebs kill themselves over our strats. And the F4U? You might as well model the CO2 fuel fire prevention system, but make sure to add the emergency gear blow-down bottle right next to it so that if they make that mistake they are stuck with gear down. And controls? Not just surfaces anymore, we should be able to shoot away the cockpit linkages from below, so these furballers get jammed controls and auger like their real world counterparts. Bomber turrets? Hydraulics off of one engine only. Kill that engine, kill all turrets. Gun chargers the same thing.
You could go on and on, so why stop at oxygen bottles? Let's turn the game into a true study simulation so there won't be anymore jumping from plane to plane without an actual pilots manual.
+1 I like it! :aok
This!^ would be the post that deserves the 'HTC doesn't want engine micro-management' reply. A true over-reaction argument. :rofl
-
Bomber turrets? Hydraulics off of one engine only. Kill that engine, kill all turrets. Gun chargers the same thing.
B-17 had electric turrets, same for B-24 with exception of the tail turret. Gun charges were the "armstrong" type...you grabbed the handle and yanked it back.
-
B-17 had electric turrets, same for B-24 with exception of the tail turret. Gun charges were the "armstrong" type...you grabbed the handle and yanked it back.
Where was the power from? If I recall correctly, on Lancasters the #3 engine supplied the power (hydraulics I think, but maybe electric) for the turrets.
On the Mosquito Mk XVI one of the engines (I don't recall which) provided the cabin pressurization.
-
Ok ... this is way too hard a wish, then ... for programmer and player alike. :D ahem
-
Where was the power from? If I recall correctly, on Lancasters the #3 engine supplied the power (hydraulics I think, but maybe electric) for the turrets.
On the Mosquito Mk XVI one of the engines (I don't recall which) provided the cabin pressurization.
Correct. Lancs were #3. I don't believe the two examples are accurate, nor consistent with every type. Certainly, Spits and Hurricanes could not charge their guns the same way a P-51 could, or F4U.
And to add a reply to Arlo: The entire "add Oxygen" item is an overreaction and as I already said, an attempt to force players to fly only along certain lines.
You and the likes of you demanded changes be made to cause people to fight, to "force them to fight" if you will. Then you got hordes as a result. This wish is just as stupid.
-
I thought we already had plenty playing AH that suffered from hypoxia. :D
-
Where was the power from?
The B-17 was an electric airplane, generator on each engine. The only hydraulics are the brakes and cowl flaps. The hydraulic pump is electrically driver and mounted in the right rear corner of the cockpit --- right next to several O2 tanks --- no wonder you read about so many cockpit fires.
The B-24 had an engine driven hydraulic pump on the #3 engine plus an electric pump to assist during high demand times such as gear retraction. (Even the it takes about 15-18 seconds which is a very, very long time with an engine loss on takeoff). B-24 was mostly hydraulic - brakes, gear, flaps and tail turret. Bombbay and cowl flaps are electric.
-
And to add a reply to Arlo: The entire "add Oxygen" item is an overreaction and as I already said, an attempt to force players to fly only along certain lines.
You and the likes of you demanded changes be made to cause people to fight, to "force them to fight" if you will. Then you got hordes as a result. This wish is just as stupid.
Um no. To paraphrase Yul Brynner in the Magnificent Seven - Chalenge, please don't understand me so fast. You just think that's both the motivation and effect. It no more forces players to 'fight' than control surfaces and unwillingness to use them would. The oxy will probably work flawlessly, unless it is damaged or destroyed. Bet the planes will all climb like normal, boom and zoom like normal and fly at max speed like normal and having oxygen aboard won't stop that. Don't be jealous. Not every good idea will be yours. :D
-
Where was the power from? If I recall correctly, on Lancasters the #3 engine supplied the power (hydraulics I think, but maybe electric) for the turrets.
On the Mosquito Mk XVI one of the engines (I don't recall which) provided the cabin pressurization.
An electrical system that's engineered needlessly inadequate on a british machine? How stereotypical.
-
Um no. To paraphrase Yul Brynner in the Magnificent Seven - Chalenge, please don't understand me so fast. You just think that's both the motivation and effect. It no more forces players to 'fight' than control surfaces and unwillingness to use them would. The oxy will probably work flawlessly, unless it is damaged or destroyed. Bet the planes will all climb like normal, boom and zoom like normal and fly at max speed like normal and having oxygen aboard won't stop that. Don't be jealous. Not every good idea will be yours. :D
BS and I'm being nice. I think you went on board, or saw pictures of all the oxygen bottles aboard bombers and you thought to yourself, "this is another way to get bombers to come down so I don't have to climb up to them."
You need to get used to the idea that the trend in WWII was "ever higher, ever faster." They didn't put a pressurized cockpit on aircraft so they could furball at 5k.
Modeling individual systems outside of what we already have is probably a fruitless endeavor.
-
BS and I'm being nice. I think you went on board, or saw pictures of all the oxygen bottles aboard bombers and you thought to yourself, "this is another way to get bombers to come down so I don't have to climb up to them."
You need to get used to the idea that the trend in WWII was "ever higher, ever faster." They didn't put a pressurized cockpit on aircraft so they could furball at 5k.
Modeling individual systems outside of what we already have is probably a fruitless endeavor.
Making up what you think my motivation is and how I came about it doesn't make your claim of what it will result in realistic. At this point, you're just having a hissy. You're way too concerned about how this may negatively affect the way you like to play. If you're good at it, it never will. :D
p.s. I love climbing up to bombers. :aok
-
dead thread Its not gonna happen.
-
if this gets added, pretty soon the conspiracy guys will start that it doesnt work properly on any german rides :noid.
semp
Schlowy still stinking up 200?
Btw, love the idea arlo
-
Unarmed bombs exploding from taking hits? Rerferences and statistics?
It happened. I've read several accounts. Saburo Sakai's biography has at least one account.
-
Making up what you think my motivation is and how I came about it doesn't make your claim of what it will result in realistic. At this point, you're just having a hissy. You're way too concerned about how this may negatively affect the way you like to play. If you're good at it, it never will. :D
p.s. I love climbing up to bombers. :aok
I'm not concerned about it affecting my gameplay at all. What I am thinking is this: if they put oxygen bottles in every airplane that will mean years of work. I would much rather have terrain triggered audio affects (ambient), more airplanes, more GVs, strats separated, and a hundred other things than I would one single footstep toward making AH a study simulation.
Your current argument is not supporting your position anymore. Now you just sound like someone upset that they are not going to get their way. And my assessment of your reasoning is accurate.
-
I'm not concerned about it affecting my gameplay at all.
You've been going on and on about how this wish is all about affecting that type of gameplay (which it never was). :headscratch:
Your current argument is not supporting your position anymore. Now you just sound like someone upset that they are not going to get their way. And my assessment of your reasoning is accurate.
Why on earth would anyone get upset in the wishlist thread about someone else telling them they wont get their way, oh Carnac the Magnificent? :lol
-
I'm not concerned about it affecting my gameplay at all. What I am thinking is this: if they put oxygen bottles in every airplane that will mean years of work. I would much rather have terrain triggered audio affects (ambient), more airplanes, more GVs, strats separated, and a hundred other things than I would one single footstep toward making AH a study simulation.
Your current argument is not supporting your position anymore. Now you just sound like someone upset that they are not going to get their way. And my assessment of your reasoning is accurate.
Your comments are out of line and inaccurate.
Where do you get the estimate on how long it would take them to model this? It's air, they don't have to build each molecule like modeling an a/c, we just pretend it's there. All they have to do is type a few lines that execute a blackout under certain altitudes and conditions. Quite simple I'm guessing.
If the "accurate assessment" you're referring to is your comment "this is another way to get bombers to come down so I don't have to climb up to them." or the "You and the likes of you demanded changes be made to cause people to fight, to "force them to fight" if you will. Then you got hordes as a result. This wish is just as stupid" then your assessment could not in any sense be called accurate. In fact, it appears you are either arguing for the sake of arguing or you are concerned it will affect your gameplay, contrary to your statement it doesn't.
Calling someone else's wish stupid (even if it was, which this one is not) is childish and low class and strongly suggests you need more education even more-so when you conjur up inaccurate assessments.
This wish is merely a way to add a higher level of gameplay. If you think it is too hard, then say so instead of making up imaginary motives why others would enjoy this. IF you had said it would be too much for new players, then I might agree to that, but I don't think it is. As a matter of fact, this is one "reality" feature that I think can easily be applied and implemented to give this game a little more credibility with the "realism movement" with out significantly affecting those who don't care or want more realism.
-
Thankfully where I sit is only about 50ft above sea level, so my oxygen level is very comfortable.
-
B-17 had electric turrets, same for B-24 with exception of the tail turret. Gun charges were the "armstrong" type...you grabbed the handle and yanked it back.
:airplane: and don't forget the "RAT", which could be either Electrical or hydro. Used in emerency situations only!
-
It would also be good if they would add the possibility of the O2 bottles being damaged.
ack-ack
-
It would also be good if they would add the possibility of the O2 bottles being damaged.
ack-ack
I thought this whole thing was about adding it so it could be damaged...
So no to micromanagement
but +1 to something that limits altitude effectiveness when damaged or causes a large fireball.....
-
Your comments are out of line and inaccurate. . . [rubbish removed]
If you want to hit something on an airplane, something specific, then it has to be modeled within the aircraft model. In order for that to be done every aircraft would have to be revisited. All of them.
You want to talk about class? Your lofty opinion that this wish would somehow take gameplay to a higher level is misdirected. All of the recent wind changes have really damaged the bombers ability to hit targets in the game. At least, that is what it seems like since they are ALL flying at low altitude now. Forcing more changes upon them is downright underhanded, because you are forcing everyone into the short-distance furball/horde.
I'm not making it up muzik. I think the wish is stupid. If you want to create a more detailed simulation then let's have a study simulation. Bringing bits and pieces in on the whims of a few players is merely shaping the game into a low furball and people are, I believe, leaving as a result. Bomber pilots really don't like flying low. They like bombing and getting home. The reason this wish is stupid (my words) is because it ignores the bomber pilots in favor of the fighter pilots at a time when we should want to be inviting even more people into the game.
Keep living your fantasy and you will eventually be down to a few dozen people flying furballs over the same three fields endlessly.
-
If you want to hit something on an airplane .... [whining redacted]
Geez, adding your perspective on the "huge chore" modeling hypoxia and bottles to the game would be as compared to modeling birds tweeting in the fields isn't making your "concern for the community" that your preferred method of playing the game would dry up due to oxygen systems threatening it sound any better. However, extreme predictions are oft borne of extreme fears. You must think this wish has more potential for approval than you claim, with as much blood, sweat and tears you're putting into fighting it. :D
-
I think the simpler method as a damageable item near the pilot would work. If not the bottles, then the system - air lines - to the pilot. And then the blacking out begins... Simple concept to implement - but it would not be a minor undertaking however from a programming perspective. You'd have to change every aircraft's damage model
OR... OR it could be just a pilot-centric damage - like pilot wound, but O2 system damage.
-
I think the simpler method as a damageable item near the pilot would work. If not the bottles, then the system - air lines - to the pilot. And then the blacking out begins... Simple concept to implement - but it would not be a minor undertaking however from a programming perspective. You'd have to change every aircraft's damage model
OR... OR it could be just a pilot-centric damage - like pilot wound, but O2 system damage.
More survivable than PWs. If it draws even a small percentage away from PWs, you'd think this would be popular. :)
-
More survivable than PWs. If it draws even a small percentage away from PWs, you'd think this would be popular. :)
I think it could be one or the other - you get hit or your O2 systems. It means having two possible damageable items - you as a pilot or your O2 systems. O2 means you need to get below 10'000 ft or start blacking out like you're PW'. Simple to do I think but that's for HTC to decide...
Still a good idea Arlo. :aok
-
I think it could be one or the other - you get hit or your O2 systems. It means having two possible damageable items - you as a pilot or your O2 systems. O2 means you need to get below 10'000 ft or start blacking out like you're PW'. Simple to do I think but that's for HTC to decide...
Still a good idea Arlo. :aok
Depending on the location of the O2 tanks to the cockpit/pilot, a hit on those tanks would very likely result in the pilot being killed by the explosion or receiving some very nasty burns. For example, in Zekes, the O2 tanks were located behind the cockpit/pilot and US pilots were instructed to aim in this area because making the O2 tanks explode would either result in the pilot being killed or being severly wounded by the explosion/fire.
ack-ack
-
Depending on the location of the O2 tanks to the cockpit/pilot, a hit on those tanks would very likely result in the pilot being killed by the explosion or receiving some very nasty burns. For example, in Zekes, the O2 tanks were located behind the cockpit/pilot and US pilots were instructed to aim in this area because making the O2 tanks explode would either result in the pilot being killed or being severly wounded by the explosion/fire.
ack-ack
If it's the tank that's hit. There's a possibility that the tank(s) is(are) missed but the hose is severed.
-
If you want to hit something on an airplane, something specific, then it has to be modeled within the aircraft model. In order for that to be done every aircraft would have to be revisited. All of them.
Again, an oxygen bottle is invisible to the player. We pretend it's there as well, it has no skin to cover or paint. And VERY likely, it will not be a true to life shape, but a box of some dimension that approximates the size of an oxygen bottle. 8 points added to the internal space on aircraft and the coading that defines the damage. Still not a huge task.
You want to talk about class? Your lofty opinion that this wish would somehow take gameplay to a higher level is misdirected. All of the recent wind changes have really damaged the bombers ability to hit targets in the game. At least, that is what it seems like since they are ALL flying at low altitude now. Forcing more changes upon them is downright underhanded, because you are forcing everyone into the short-distance furball/horde.
It's telling that you used the word misdirected. Because if you had said the "higher level" assessment was wrong, you would have to defend that and you know it is a higher level. Misdirecting is what you are trying to do.
IL-2 has probably the largest share of the entire flight sim market. That could be for any number of reasons, not the least of which is the free play after the initial purchase. But there is an obvious consensus among IL-2 users that know very little about AH that it is a lower fidelity game and they completely ignore the points that are better than IL-2. The only way this is going to change is with some noticeable changes in the game. Not just new aircraft.
I'm not making it up muzik. I think the wish is stupid. If you want to create a more detailed simulation then let's have a study simulation. Bringing bits and pieces in on the whims of a few players is merely shaping the game into a low furball and people are, I believe, leaving as a result. Bomber pilots really don't like flying low. They like bombing and getting home. The reason this wish is stupid (my words) is because it ignores the bomber pilots in favor of the fighter pilots at a time when we should want to be inviting even more people into the game.
I never suspected you were making up things. I know your blowing this game change out of proportion.
I don't care if bomber guys have to fly lower now. Level bombing has always been WAY too accurate. So if they want to fly lower, let them. More targets for fighters. That's the way it should be, risk/reward. But you said it yourself, it's not the oxygen that forced them down, winds did. So you just blew your argument. They are already low by your admission and oxygen will not change that.
Now I'm going to speculate, why is it so important to the bomber guys to fly low? Because as most of the players, they want that top spot on the scoreboard. Simple solution then really. Make winds that go all the way to the deck so that dropping 10k feet of alt doesnt really change the result that much. Then everyone who level bombs is on a even playing field at 10k or 20k.
And as far as people leaving, I think it's more because the game has changed little in over a decade.
-
O2: +1
Have it turn on automatically, but have damaged system cause hypoxia or alt reduction.
-
What you are now describing is no different than the critical pilot instant kills we already have.
Muzik stop trying to take the upper road here. This wish is based in ignorance of the way the systems existed in bomber aircraft, and ignorance of the design required to represent them in the game. In fighters it's a simple bottle, perhaps, but it goes far beyond that when you are talking about a life support system. The bottle itself is only part of the system. Of course the OP focused on that because it is the simplest way to think of a critical hit. However, there are several other ways to knock an aircraft down which he has ignored. Mostly, I think this wish is a waste of time because I believe Hitech has probably already taken considerable time in contemplation of exactly what a critical hit might be, and whether we are aware of it, or not, has already included them all in one form or another.
Where this wish is very thin is with bombers where the system is multiple bottles, some of which are already in the aircraft. Jump in a B17 and those yellow containers inside the aircraft are O2. Only a small portion of them are in the game, though. Also, bomber aircraft have all got portable units and likely enough for all individuals plus extras too. They had to have them because unlike fighters the bomber crew sometimes must move around inside the plane to take care of various tasks. So, in reality this will not have any affect upon bombers if, as you now want, the entire system is reproduced.
Among fighters the most likely cause of an O2 explosion is a hit by explosive ammunition, which requires just a proximity hit to destroy the O2 bottle. Anything else will require a direct hit, which means you are more likely to have also gotten multiple hits. Anything like the explosive ammunition or multiple hits will already (currently) kill a fighter. Again, wasted development.
So, in conclusion, all Hitech has to do is say "it's already in the game" and it is, because it obviously is. Now, you will say, "yes but we don't have an hypoxia effect," but you do. It's called a pilot wound. Now you might claim that with hypoxia you have the possibility of clearing your head. Nope, most victims died anyway and the reason is simple; they never knew it. The way most people today discover they are under the effects of hypoxia is communication, which in the war was non-existent because of radio silence. Those are the ones (some of them at least) that just flew off never to be seen again. End of story.
As to IL2, who cares? I really like AH the way it is, when it is at its best. Sometimes the net isn't up to speed and the game suffers. If you start requesting more items like O2 tanks, then I believe the net code will increase its load upon everyone's system. BAD idea.
I would love to see a study simulation along the lines of AH. Not only is AH better off as a survey simulation, but the Internet in the United States is unlikely to be capable of supporting a study simulation similar to AH for decades to come.
So, be careful what you wish for. This wish is ill-advised at best.
-
This wish is based in ignorance of the way the systems existed in bomber aircraft, and ignorance of the design required to represent them in the game. In fighters it's a simple bottle, perhaps, but it goes far beyond that when you are talking about a life support system. The bottle itself is only part of the system. Of course the OP focused on that because it is the simplest way to think of a critical hit. However, there are several other ways to knock an aircraft down which he has ignored. Mostly, I think this wish is a waste of time because I believe Hitech has probably already taken considerable time in contemplation of exactly what a critical hit might be, and whether we are aware of it, or not, has already included them all in one form or another.
You sure love taking presumption to new heights (ptp). First you imagine motive. Next you imagine ignorance. Then you try to use that imagination to shore up a stronger emotional argument while trying to make it sound like a purely logical one. If you have a logical rebuttal, why do you apparently feel the need to go beyond that? :aok
Where this wish is very thin is with bombers where the system is multiple bottles, some of which are already in the aircraft. Jump in a B17 and those yellow containers inside the aircraft are O2. Only a small portion of them are in the game, though. [What?! Heh.]Also, bomber aircraft have all got portable units and likely enough for all individuals plus extras too. They had to have them because unlike fighters the bomber crew sometimes must move around inside the plane to take care of various tasks. So, in reality this will not have any affect upon bombers if, as you now want, the entire system is reproduced.
" Mission 8. October 18, 1944 - Kassel Germany."
"Bombed aero-engine and parts factory; B-17 #009. The oxygen supply in the cockpit and the nose ran out over the target. For two hours Page, Lentz, Kellogg, and Vieth filled portable oxygen tanks and carried them through the bomb bay to the pilots in the cockpit and the navigator and bombardier in the nose. Finally had to let down over enemy territory because of lack of oxygen."
http://www.100thbg.com/mainpages/history/history3/brownsclowns2.htm
Having said that, let me correct you on the perspective of the OP since you're not very good at guessing. When it came to a suggestion of a possible oxygen system and hypoxia effect I always thought the bombers were more resilient .... for reasons even you haven't thought to include in your argument. Basically, unless we're talking about a crewman segregated from all the rest (tail gunner) if one is suffering the effects of hypoxia then it will become evident to another. On the flight deck, this would mean pilot and co-pilot would both both have to be suffering it (as in the above quoted instance). Fighter pilots, however, would not have that added measure of security. At extreme altitude (say 30k+), if the O2 system failed (in a less explosive manner) the pilot would be prone to a rapid blackout with no warning then a very short time span before death. Even if the pilot survives the effects of hypoxia, regaining consciousness once below 10,000 is not guaranteed (but isn't merely discounted, either). Yes, the danger presented in losing your oxygen increases with altitude (isn't this established as an obvious by us both, by now?) but the likelihood of what I'm suggesting would be a small percentage of the damage algorithm anyhow. At this point I've seen you waver between this being an 'end of AH' issue to a completely irrelevant/waste of time one. I've seen a great deal of effort, on your part. If I 'didn't know better' I'd say you do somehow feel either threatened by the idea .... or you're the type that takes disagreement to a whole new personal level (not that it has to be 'either or' ... either). ;)
Among fighters the most likely cause of an O2 explosion is a hit by explosive ammunition, which requires just a proximity hit to destroy the O2 bottle. Anything else will require a direct hit, which means you are more likely to have also gotten multiple hits. Anything like the explosive ammunition or multiple hits will already (currently) kill a fighter. Again, wasted development.
While you may argue probability, you cannot argue certainty. Perhaps the explosive hit was not in the cockpit ... yet shrapnel made it into the cockpit and severed the hose. Perhaps it's not a case of several rounds entering the cockpit but one round, the rest of which stitched the fuselage ... or even missed.
So, in conclusion, all Hitech has to do is say "it's already in the game" and it is, because it obviously is. Now, you will say, "yes but we don't have an hypoxia effect," but you do. It's called a pilot wound. Now you might claim that with hypoxia you have the possibility of clearing your head. Nope, most victims died anyway and the reason is simple; they never knew it. The way most people today discover they are under the effects of hypoxia is communication, which in the war was non-existent because of radio silence. Those are the ones (some of them at least) that just flew off never to be seen again. End of story.
If pilot wound = hypoxia ... it would stop being a pilot wound (or never would have been one) under 10k. Kinda pokes a hole in and lets the air out of a " ... "it's already in the game" and it is, because it obviously is." statement. (Again - ptp) :aok
Pilots on oxygen who experienced violent damage to their O2 system (without bottle explosion or personal injury, as slim a chance as you give for such) would certainly know when the O2 flow ceased and, depending on altitude and reaction time, may be able to descend to a safer altitude before hypoxia rendered them incapable. What you're describing would be more akin to system failure of a different kind (insufficient O2 flow either through mechanical malfunction or pilot error).
-
Hell no, I've been flying in a 12k in a trike, without any signs of hypoxia, we even did quite hard turns at altitude.
Anything below 15k is not going to do anything but get you headace. Turning at 4g prolonged at 15k might.
(http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/_SrAQ3Ei4tE/mqdefault.jpg)
(http://www.cheshiremicrolights.co.uk/gallery_images/Stafford.jpg)
Its not me in pics above ,but same plane type.
I admit, sitting there with your feet waggling outside the cockpit, and see a BAC146 whooshing by under you is an experience.
(http://www.google.se/imgres?imgurl=http://www.deroeck.co.uk/plane-pictures-jet/BAE-146-(13)-03.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.deroeck.co.uk/planes/BAe-146-01.html&h=300&w=400&sz=36&tbnid=Qt3R6-6PHzVjjM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__N49yxODNKIJzUj3kHqPRarm1eN0=&docid=e0GxgT6VqHFdJM&sa=X&ei=WeOTUebiGNL24QThmYDgBA&ved=0CDwQ9QEwAQ&dur=3740)
-
Hell no, I've been flying in a 12k in a trike, without any signs of hypoxia, we even did quite hard turns at altitude.
Anything below 15k is not going to do anything but get you headace. Turning at 4g prolonged at 15k might.
It depends on how long you're that high.
http://www.ifr-magazine.com/oxygen-and-hypoxemia.html
It can also vary per individual and per conditioning.
-
You sure love taking presumption to new heights (ptp). First you imagine motive. Next you imagine ignorance. Then you try to use that imagination to shore up a stronger emotional argument while trying to make it sound like a purely logical one. If you have a logical rebuttal, why do you apparently feel the need to go beyond that? :aok
No, at this point I think you are over-reaching in an attempt to keep your wish alive. I can see directly through your motives, both an attempt to control how other pilots fly and ignorance of the way oxygen worked in reality during WWII. I can tell you for a fact that all radial engine aircraft required that oxygen be used any time the aircraft was buttoned up (canopy closed). So, with your wish any one of these aircraft with radial engines that suffers a hit to the oxygen system (not just the tank) will be killed instantly, because of either explosion or carbon-monoxide poisoning.
This will never be implemented. You can try all the illogical 'appeal-to-ignore-rebuttal' turns of argument you want. It's a dead wish.
-
You can try all the illogical 'appeal-to-ignore-rebuttal' turns of argument you want.
I guess I can, though I'm not sure what this bit of random word use means. Have no fear, Chalenge, m'dear. :aok
-
What ............................. ..the hell is he talking about?
I'm done. I have little understanding of programming and game mechanics, but you have ZERO understanding of them.
All of that babble was nothing but false assumptions on your part and jiberish you made up as you go. You TRY to make it out to be far more complicated than it would be but you have no clue what what you are talking about and make less and less sense the longer you argue.
You are wrong about the technical implementation of this idea.
You are wrong about the motives for the idea.
You are wrong about the hypoxia killing "most pilots."
And I'm sure most of your history is wrong too.
If I had to guess what your motive for arguing against this is, I would take what I have heard about your flying style, add it to the comments you have made about "forcing others to fight" and conclude that you are such a timid flyer that you are scared this will take your hiding place away at some point.
-
I'm done.
You sure talk a lot for someone that is done.
I understand far me than you do, dweeblet. I understand that you and Arlo are both attempting to manipulate the game in order to favor your own style of gameplay. That's all anyone needs to understand.
@Arlo, what it means is that you are trying to accelerate a losing argument based on false assumptions, and then trying to remove the possibility of rebuttal by citing frequency as a weak standpoint. You have no argument that favors your position stronger than manipulation. So go with that.
-
You sure talk a lot for someone that is done.
I understand far me than you do, dweeblet. I understand that you and Arlo are both attempting to manipulate the game in order to favor your own style of gameplay. That's all anyone needs to understand.
@Arlo, what it means is that you are trying to accelerate a losing argument based on false assumptions, and then trying to remove the possibility of rebuttal by citing frequency as a weak standpoint. You have no argument that favors your position stronger than manipulation. So go with that.
How ironical. Lighten up, Francis. :D
-
Anything below 15k is not going to do anything but get you headace. Turning at 4g prolonged at 15k might..
Depends. Had a B24 copilot get hypoxia enough that she dropped the flight suit and peed in front of several pax, didn't remember a thing. Had been at only 13k for 1-2 hours. She was fine in the seat but getting up and walking to the tail did her in.
-
Agreed, That could be the difference, sitting strapped is one thing, walking around another. Trikes and fighters are kinda hard to take a walk in....
Also we stayed at 12k for less than 30 minutes.
My friend claimed he was up to 21k once in a trike... had a mirror to check if his lips went blue .... :eek:
-
How ironical. Lighten up, Francis. :D
That's what I thought. I got nothing.
-
That's what I thought. I got nothing.
Exactly. I agree. :aok
-
Even at 30,000 feet, you don't instantly pass out when oxygen supply stops.
If that were the case, I wouldn't be dining on delicious lobster during the mini-season.
-
Even at 30,000 feet, you don't instantly pass out when oxygen supply stops.
If that were the case, I wouldn't be dining on delicious lobster during the mini-season.
Ok ... 1 or 2 minutes of average effective performance time. :cool:
http://www.c-f-c.com/supportdocs/abo4.htm
Average Effective Performance Time for flying
personnel without supplemental oxygen:
15,000 to 18,000 feet ..........30 minutes or more
22,000 feet ............................. ..5 to 10 minutes
25,000 feet ............................. ....3 to 5 minutes
28,000 feet......................... ...2 1/2 to 3 minutes
30,000 feet ............................. ....1 to 2 minutes
35,000 feet ............................3 0 to 60 seconds
40,000 feet ............................1 5 to 20 seconds
45,000 feet ............................. .9 to 15 seconds
-
I got nothing.
Finally, you get something right.
15,000 to 18,000 feet ..........30 minutes or more
22,000 feet ............................. ..5 to 10 minutes
25,000 feet ............................. ....3 to 5 minutes
28,000 feet......................... ...2 1/2 to 3 minutes
30,000 feet ............................. ....1 to 2 minutes
35,000 feet ............................3 0 to 60 seconds
40,000 feet ............................1 5 to 20 seconds
45,000 feet ............................. .9 to 15 seconds
OMG, what are you thinking? With these kinds of numbers, you just turned all chanllenged's arguments into a non issue. Do you realize how much time I wasted for nothing?
Good job though. Hitech likes numbers he don't have to look up.
-
Finally, you get something right.
Muzik, if you ever get a clue it will be a game card worth nothing.
-
Muzik, if you ever get a clue it will be a game card worth nothing.
:huh Heh. Hat's off if English is your second language. Lawd knows I have but one. But
some of your attempts at 'making a point' are hilarious. :aok
-
Hell no, I've been flying in a 12k in a trike, without any signs of hypoxia, we even did quite hard turns at altitude.
Anything below 15k is not going to do anything but get you headace. Turning at 4g prolonged at 15k might.
(http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/_SrAQ3Ei4tE/mqdefault.jpg)
(http://www.cheshiremicrolights.co.uk/gallery_images/Stafford.jpg)
Its not me in pics above ,but same plane type.
I admit, sitting there with your feet waggling outside the cockpit, and see a BAC146 whooshing by under you is an experience.
(http://www.google.se/imgres?imgurl=http://www.deroeck.co.uk/plane-pictures-jet/BAE-146-(13)-03.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.deroeck.co.uk/planes/BAe-146-01.html&h=300&w=400&sz=36&tbnid=Qt3R6-6PHzVjjM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__N49yxODNKIJzUj3kHqPRarm1eN0=&docid=e0GxgT6VqHFdJM&sa=X&ei=WeOTUebiGNL24QThmYDgBA&ved=0CDwQ9QEwAQ&dur=3740)
Save, that is awesome. Do you need a licence for that trike or can any nutter get one and fly it? I'm seriously tempted.
-
How interesting would it be if pilots suffered from hypoxia above 10k if they didn't turn on oxygen and if an oxygen system was incorporated into systems that could be damaged, either requiring staying at a certain altitude or diving back to a certain altitude?
Hm.
*ShruG*
:airplane: It has been an interesting thread! The USAF and Navy pilot training programs both use "pressure chamber" tests and all flight crew must go through this training! Hypoxia affects different people differently! I can only recall my experience with the "chamber". At 20,000 feet, I could still write my name after thirty seconds...at 28,000 feet, could only write 3 letters of first name before ink trailed off in straight line...at 33,000 feet, was unconscious in about 15 seconds. The reason they require that is to show you the danger of not monitoring your oxygen supply or pressurization system.
There are number of ways for crews to monitor oxygen in the aircraft, one in a pressurized, such as the B-29, you had a instrument which showed cabin pressure altitude in feet and also outside pressure altitude. Some instruments show the PSI differential between inside of aircraft and outside. In single engine fighters which were not pressurized during WW2, you had a "flow" meter, which would blink at you as long as oxygen was passing through it to your oxygen mask.
I don't think Aces High would have any way to apply the hypoxia problem as it affect pilots. If they just set an arbitrary figure, then everyone would just stay below it unless they had a way to control their oxygen input.
-
:airplane: It has been an interesting thread! The USAF and Navy pilot training programs both use "pressure chamber" tests and all flight crew must go through this training! Hypoxia affects different people differently! I can only recall my experience with the "chamber". At 20,000 feet, I could still write my name after thirty seconds...at 28,000 feet, could only write 3 letters of first name before ink trailed off in straight line...at 33,000 feet, was unconscious in about 15 seconds. The reason they require that is to show you the danger of not monitoring your oxygen supply or pressurization system.
There are number of ways for crews to monitor oxygen in the aircraft, one in a pressurized, such as the B-29, you had a instrument which showed cabin pressure altitude in feet and also outside pressure altitude. Some instruments show the PSI differential between inside of aircraft and outside. In single engine fighters which were not pressurized during WW2, you had a "flow" meter, which would blink at you as long as oxygen was passing through it to your oxygen mask.
I don't think Aces High would have any way to apply the hypoxia problem as it affect pilots. If they just set an arbitrary figure, then everyone would just stay below it unless they had a way to control their oxygen input.
Thanks for added insight, Earl. :)
It wouldn't be as complex as real life demanded. But then neither is maintaining engine performance in AHII.
Likely it would be as simple as 'oxygen system undamaged and operational = 'no pilot pass out' screen above 15k /
oxygen system damaged and inoperable = 'pilot pass out screen above 15k - pilot recovers from uncon within
15-30 seconds under 15k'
-
Muzik, if you ever get a clue it will be a game card worth nothing.
With all the evidence mounting in this thread, looks like you confused your cards value for mine.
:D