Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: flippz on April 03, 2018, 12:28:47 PM
-
I wish there was a flight characteristic change when you shoot off 1/2 a planes wing. its ridiculousto get in a fight with a plane shoot 1/2 the wing off and they out run/ and out maneuver you. now I don't doubt a 1/2 wing plane can land if slow enough but there is no way in hell a 190d with 1/2 a right wing can out run me on the deck.
have multiple films of this occurring, and its almost as if they get faster when this occurs. had a ki84 the other day 1/2 wing turn with me twice (I was not the one that hit the wing) but still two turns with 1/2 a wing, there is no way.
-
I wish there was a flight characteristic change when you shoot off 1/2 a planes wing. its ridiculousto get in a fight with a plane shoot 1/2 the wing off and they out run/ and out maneuver you. now I don't doubt a 1/2 wing plane can land if slow enough but there is no way in hell a 190d with 1/2 a right wing can out run me on the deck.
have multiple films of this occurring, and its almost as if they get faster when this occurs. had a ki84 the other day 1/2 wing turn with me twice (I was not the one that hit the wing) but still two turns with 1/2 a wing, there is no way.
There is. The wing seems to lose about... half its lift or so. There is some wiggle room in how much lift a plane produces compared to its weight so with the wingtip gone, the root of the wing can still generate enough lift to carry some planes if you're careful.
What specifically would cause a plane to slow down when missing half a wing? There's less drag with it gone.
Wiley.
-
There is. The wing seems to lose about... half its lift or so. There is some wiggle room in how much lift a plane produces compared to its weight so with the wingtip gone, the root of the wing can still generate enough lift to carry some planes if you're careful.
What specifically would cause a plane to slow down when missing half a wing? There's less drag with it gone.
Wiley.
Induced drag of all sorts among other things--like mangled parts sticking out all over. Assuming the reduced drag of the missing wing isn't a full offset of course.
-
Induced drag of all sorts among other things--like mangled parts sticking out all over. Assuming the reduced drag of the missing wing isn't a full offset of course.
What mangled parts? They seem to break somewhat clean. How does that drag compare to the drag created by the wing itself?
Wiley.
-
What mangled parts? They seem to break somewhat clean. How does that drag compare to the drag created by the wing itself?
Wiley.
How would I know without a wind tunnel? Seriously. I have no clue, bruh. If a mangled wingtip was less drag than a faired one well...
Meanwhile you've got yaw you must counter with rudder and asymmetric lift to counter with aileron. That's not a drag-free endeavor.
-
How would I know without a wind tunnel? Seriously. I have no clue, bruh. If a mangled wingtip was less drag than a faired one well...
Meanwhile you've got yaw you must counter with rudder and asymmetric lift to counter with aileron. That's not a drag-free endeavor.
And that yaw and asymmetric lift are modeled. Drag due to not flying straight appears to be modeled as well. About the only thing we can't see is how much the broken end affects things versus the clean full wing.
About all you guys are saying is "Something should be different." without showing or seemingly knowing how that stacks up against what's already there.
Wiley.
-
And that yaw and asymmetric lift are modeled. Drag due to not flying straight appears to be modeled as well. About the only thing we can't see is how much the broken end affects things versus the clean full wing.
About all you guys are saying is "Something should be different." without showing or seemingly knowing how that stacks up against what's already there.
Wiley.
Being modeled doesn't mean modeled accurately. (I'm not saying it's inaccurate either.)
You can be darned sure a mangled wing will create loads of drag. All you have to do is look at VGs on the cockpit hump of a G-Whiz or a Legacy to know that.
-
Wings are hollow aren't they....surely that would cause drag...it is not a clean surface allowing air flow.... I would think it would cause the plane to be pulled in the direction of break as this would have a reduced airflow....
I notice this on certain planes...not just one..... all I know is half a wing on a Ki61 and there is a real struggle to get it down safely.... there is no chance to attempt to change direction quickly let alone fly full speed and keep things straight.... it has made me wonder at times...but gave up worrying many years ago.
-
I’m not saying you can’t fly one. I’m saying you are not going to do 330 mph turning and weaving from enemy gun fire and out run any thing. Just annoying.
-
I’m not saying you can’t fly one. I’m saying you are not going to do 330 mph turning and weaving from enemy gun fire and out run any thing. Just annoying.
How fast would you go then?
Wiley.
-
The f4us can do it as well....that is as long as I am not flying it. In that case it requires full opposite rudder to even keep it level and then a storch can catch me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The most important issue is whether or not the remaining aileron could counter the asymmetric lift. At high speed even half a wing produces enough lift to allow you to maneuver. (but you have a lot more drag). In general the TnB:ers handles it better than the BnZ:ers due to their lower wing loading. IRL it would probably be a lot messier to do but writing the piece of code to properly simulate the air flow over the broken wing is a bit complicated and it would prob be a bit overkill for a video game..
And it was apparently possible to fly with half a wing...
(https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/monthly_04_2014/post-1354-0-67057300-1397156942.jpg)
-
The most important issue is whether or not the remaining aileron could counter the asymmetric lift. At high speed even half a wing produces enough lift to allow you to maneuver. (but you have a lot more drag). In general the TnB:ers handles it better than the BnZ:ers due to their lower wing loading. IRL it would probably be a lot messier to do but writing the piece of code to properly simulate the air flow over the broken wing is a bit complicated and it would prob be a bit overkill for a video game..
And it was apparently possible to fly with half a wing...
We all know it’s possible. That wasn’t the OP’s grievance.
-
Hitech has some kind of wind tunnel function he runs from what I remember when he develops a new ride. He had to have tested many conditions to choose to allow for the 190 to stay in the air once it lost the outboard wing panel. Don't we always tell people which side wing you want knocked off so the prop helps balance things? Was that the situation with the 190 in question? I've had dora's get me home with no problems with a wing shot off and other times I could not keep control due to it being the wrong side wing.
-
Hitech has some kind of wind tunnel function he runs from what I remember when he develops a new ride. He had to have tested many conditions to choose to allow for the 190 to stay in the air once it lost the outboard wing panel. Don't we always tell people which side wing you want knocked off so the prop helps balance things? Was that the situation with the 190 in question? I've had dora's get me home with no problems with a wing shot off and other times I could not keep control due to it being the wrong side wing.
I think the issue is not the plane flying. It’s the plane missing a wing flying at full speed and being able to outmaneuver a fully intact aircraft minus half a wing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What many fail to realize is it's a graphic representation and you may or may not be missing the "half a wing"! You see the same thing when a flap gets shot off,yet the plane behaves like the flap is down still!
So while you may see half a wing missing that may not be the actual amount of damage!
Personally I'd like to see a more finite damage model and better graphic representations of said damage model!
YMMV!
:salute
-
I think the issue is not the plane flying. It’s the plane missing a wing flying at full speed and being able to outmaneuver a fully intact aircraft minus half a wing.
Maybe the pilot was trying to fly straight. :D
There is a very noticeable degradation in maneuvering and stability when the wing is damaged. Wish granted.
-
Again like B said. I am not saying a plane can’t fly or should die instantly due to wing tip loss. I am just saying the plane no matter what it is should not be able to out fly anything not even a hummingbird in a dog fight. Just seems very arcadic (not real word).
I do not know how to write code or program but I am sure there is a way to nerf the power a quarter or degrade the flight model character for speeds over say 150.
And again just think it’s cheesy for a plane to miss half a wing and stay in a fight or out run a non damaged aircraft to safety.
-
But that is just assumptions. You feel that a plane with half a wing should not be able to outrun or outturn anything. You think it arcadic but you want a random performance loss to be add so that the in game physics match your feeling..
Do you know how much drag you need to add in order to slow down an La-7 to allow an I-16 to chase it down? a LOT...
-
Again like B said. I am not saying a plane can’t fly or should die instantly due to wing tip loss. I am just saying the plane no matter what it is should not be able to out fly anything not even a hummingbird in a dog fight. Just seems very arcadic (not real word).
I do not know how to write code or program but I am sure there is a way to nerf the power a quarter or degrade the flight model character for sRpeeds over say 150.
And again just think it’s cheesy for a plane to miss half a wing and stay in a fight or out run a non damaged aircraft to safety.
Consider how wingtip lift is reduced when you drop flaps, which reduces the asymmetrical lift, while reducing turn radius.
-
Again like B said. I am not saying a plane can’t fly or should die instantly due to wing tip loss. I am just saying the plane no matter what it is should not be able to out fly anything not even a hummingbird in a dog fight. Just seems very arcadic (not real word).
I do not know how to write code or program but I am sure there is a way to nerf the power a quarter or degrade the flight model character for speeds over say 150.
And again just think it’s cheesy for a plane to miss half a wing and stay in a fight or out run a non damaged aircraft to safety.
What appears to happen is when the wingtip is removed, the lift it was applying disappears. It also appears the drag changes in some way, it's difficult to stay level in most planes and I think it yaws some. The aileron control also becomes less due to the missing aileron.
What you're suggesting is to apply an arbitrary effect for speeds over 150 pretty much based on your feelings and what you consider gameplay should be. And you're complaining about "arcadey"? Do you see the issue there?
Wiley.
-
What appears to happen is when the wingtip is removed, the lift it was applying disappears. It also appears the drag changes in some way, it's difficult to stay level in most planes and I think it yaws some. The aileron control also becomes less due to the missing aileron.
What you're suggesting is to apply an arbitrary effect for speeds over 150 pretty much based on your feelings and what you consider gameplay should be. And you're complaining about "arcadey"? Do you see the issue there?
Wiley.
yeah I think it is arcadic and yes there would be a huge performance and speed loss from an aircraft loosing any "major" flight surface. if not just the plane structures ability to fly but the pilots. the 150 is just a throw out number maybe some one with better knowledge of this could tulips a better number for the flight characteristic of a general planes ability. I can also imagine there were very few that made it back to a friendly air field (unless very close to friendly field during engagement) that had any type of control surface damage. the bigger planes as in the American models seem more benign to this type damage (as well to any type damage). I mean the main gunning tanks shooting planes down at 800 yds on a crossing shot is enough (which I digress as there is a film on the steam home page of a tank main gunning an il2, so if they advertise it I guess they need to make it available).
again this is only a wish and may never get any further than this but I do truly believe if a air craft looses flight/lift/control surfaces there would be huge performance loss to the planes ability. I tried to find the film of me in a ki43 fighting two rooks one was a yak and the other was ki84 and there was a about 5 good turns of fighting after loosing the right wing tip before the ki84 finally was able to get a kill shot on my plane. just think that's a little gimmicky is all, <S> to the 1/2 wing wonders
-
You mean someone that understands the aerodynamics like HiTech should adjust the flight model to reflect the damage? :D
-
the 150 is just a throw out number maybe some one with better knowledge of this could tulips a better number for the flight characteristic of a general planes ability.
You haven't defined what is wrong with how it currently works beyond saying you don't think it should work that way. I'd say Hitech might just possibly be "someone with better knowledge of flight characteristics". He likely put a fair bit of thought into the way it works now. There might be some room to quibble about the amount of drag the end of the broken wing creates, but we don't know how much drag that causes versus how much the missing part of the wing itself creates.
As far as real life and missing control surfaces, look at the thread in Aircraft and Vehicles about the Spit damage. Planes can make it home missing a surprising amount of material.
As to main gunning planes, I still really want someone to explain why if you can place the trajectory of a projectile such that it coincides with the space the target occupies, it shouldn't take damage.
Wiley.
-
So is this wish really asking Hitech to review what the performance degradation "should be" related to damaged air-frames? We know from experience the damage is a fixed menu of things that will either fall off the planes or degrade their performance before it can't fly or is destroyed. Does the wisher want the menu of damage conditions fleshed out to include more performance impacting selections or, does he believe the current menu is being under rated to the performance degradation experienced in the game?
In effect does the poster want an upgrade of the current damage modeling for aircraft in the game to include a broader menu of more severe consequences for getting hit? At some point doesn't Hitech have to trade off a balance of keeping customers in the air versus killing them with every little blip and ding to make one side of the equation happy? As the shooter, the game can be a bit unsatisfying but, everyone once shot, is very happy to get home after seeing they are missing large parts from their plane.
An even simpler wish might be for the damage power of guns to be increased so more damage points for each area in the list are ticked off with each contact. The unintended consequence for that may be making potential new customers not want to bother with our game after a few times being slaughtered by the poster of this wish. Hitech still has to make a living and where do you want to go with this. The poster having Hitech open the damage list info to him and asking for his subjective input to make just him happy? Does Hitech then downgrade tank armor because the deflection angle on the armor faces work to good to be realistic for a few players who understand the armor?
-
So is this wish really asking Hitech to review what the performance degradation "should be" related to damaged air-frames? We know from experience the damage is a fixed menu of things that will either fall off the planes or degrade their performance before it can't fly or is destroyed. Does the wisher want the menu of damage conditions fleshed out to include more performance impacting selections or, does he believe the current menu is being under rated to the performance degradation experienced in the game?
In effect does the poster want an upgrade of the current damage modeling for aircraft in the game to include a broader menu of more severe consequences for getting hit? At some point doesn't Hitech have to trade off a balance of keeping customers in the air versus killing them with every little blip and ding to make one side of the equation happy? As the shooter, the game can be a bit unsatisfying but, everyone once shot, is very happy to get home after seeing they are missing large parts from their plane.
An even simpler wish might be for the damage power of guns to be increased so more damage points for each area in the list are ticked off with each contact. The unintended consequence for that may be making potential new customers not want to bother with our game after a few times being slaughtered by the poster of this wish. Hitech still has to make a living and where do you want to go with this. The poster having Hitech open the damage list info to him and asking for his subjective input to make just him happy? Does Hitech then downgrade tank armor because the deflection angle on the armor faces work to good to be realistic for a few players who understand the armor?
ummmmmmmmm yeah
I'm just glad you didn't tell me to go build my own map
its not just me saying something about it, just me being willingful enough to post it in the wish list section. the night before I posted this there was three of us on a f4 and 1/2 winged it and almost in chorus all three said well he will get away hes only missing 1/2 a wing, and he did he out run a spit 16 yak3 and not sure what the other plane was. and I am no programmer or coder so not sure about what/how to program it and not criticizing at all but would like to see a little more performance degradation in major parts loss. I have no idea of hitecs aeronautical learnings and testing and not questioning them at all just simply posting a wish that many others have said something about as well as my own experiences in the game.
my attempt is not to slaughter new players nor was that even a thought when posted, but good troll
-
Take your plane to the deck, dip a wing in the water and run him down! :D
-
Take your plane to the deck, dip a wing in the water and run him down! :D
Hahaha, now that's funny. :aok
-
Take your plane to the deck, dip a wing in the water and run him down! :D
funny you that that was almost identical to what one other guy said, as if missing half his wing was gonna make him faster lol
-
It's not a troll flipz, it's an observation that you want something and are being confronted with a deeper pool than you were willing to get wet in. I don't need to troll you to see if you really put any effort into the depth of what you are asking Hitech.
In it's simplest terms you want people to fall out of the air with much less effort on your part so you can land your kill string. The aerodynamic modeling of damage Hitech has chosen is getting in the way of your fun. So either this wish is for him to review his assumptions made into code in your subjective favor or, to change what happens when rounds hit the other guy to fit your subjective wants.
Which is it?
-
In game I've lost a wing on several airplanes and was able to maintain control but there was no way I could have fought anything. My experience is if you can unload and get some speed up the aileron and rudder will have enough omph to keep you level. To slow for landing you need flaps down so the stub can generate some lift...still need aileron and rudder to control roll, and in some cases throttle changes as well to help with roll.
-
funny you that that was almost identical to what one other guy said, as if missing half his wing was gonna make him faster lol
Well drink less beer and hit them in the fuselage then. Remember when you are seeing two of everything.. shoot for the middle.
-
Well drink less beer and hit them in the fuselage then. Remember when you are seeing two of everything.. shoot for the middle.
What if I see four? :rofl
-
In game I've lost a wing on several airplanes and was able to maintain control but there was no way I could have fought anything. My experience is if you can unload and get some speed up the aileron and rudder will have enough omph to keep you level. To slow for landing you need flaps down so the stub can generate some lift...still need aileron and rudder to control roll, and in some cases throttle changes as well to help with roll.
Flaps and intentional fuel imbalancing also help depending on the airplane.
-
Flaps and intentional fuel imbalancing also help depending on the airplane.
I lose wingtips often for some reason. I know I've found in some planes, can't remember which ones, which wingtip gets removed makes a big difference due to torque. Losing one side you've got a relatively easy limp home. Losing the other you've got to fight a lot more and in some cases adjust throttle to fly straight.
Wiley.
-
I lose wingtips often for some reason. I know I've found in some planes, can't remember which ones, which wingtip gets removed makes a big difference due to torque. Losing one side you've got a relatively easy limp home. Losing the other you've got to fight a lot more and in some cases adjust throttle to fly straight.
Wiley.
Mustang is like that. I burn fuel out of the broken wing to create a counteracting weight imbalance. Then I figure out which flap setting is most stable and hope for the best. I sometimes do a steep bank right before ditching and time it so I wind up level.
-
It feels like most of the time I land it, although sometimes I can't keep level on final. I find coming in in a slight bank toward the undamaged wing makes it easier quite often.
Wiley.
-
It's not a troll flipz, it's an observation that you want something and are being confronted with a deeper pool than you were willing to get wet in. I don't need to troll you to see if you really put any effort into the depth of what you are asking Hitech.
In it's simplest terms you want people to fall out of the air with much less effort on your part so you can land your kill string. The aerodynamic modeling of damage Hitech has chosen is getting in the way of your fun. So either this wish is for him to review his assumptions made into code in your subjective favor or, to change what happens when rounds hit the other guy to fit your subjective wants.
Which is it?
you are a troll,,, it has nothing to do with my kill string as you put it, and not wanting to make it easier on getting a plane out of the air. just think its completely ludicrous that you shoot 1/2 a wing off a plane and it can out run a perfectly good air plane at 330 mph. I have never said the plane should fall out of the sky did I? as a matter of fact I said I can understand planes limping home,, just not out running 3 perfectly good planes. that's like saying you can get a flat and still drive faster than the car behind you to me.
yes you have gone about 20 foot deeper in to this than I have ever gone (noted why most people don't read your posts as I usually do not) and made it a point of pointing a finger at some one which I was not trying to do. that makes you a troll, I hear they are coming out with a sequel (maybe guest star?). that will be the end of you for me its just a wish man get over your self and quit acting like this is your game dude your a pawn and troll, I can wish anything I want like maybe you quit posting in a thread I put up because you are a troll!
-
There is already performance degradation when a plane loses half of a wing. If you've ever lost half a wing, you already know this. I believe HT has put a good amount of thought, research and effort into the damage model. If you think something is wrong with it and you want to be taken seriously, then you need to come up with something better than "I wish there was a flight characteristic change when you shoot off 1/2 a planes wing". What specifically about the "flight characteristics" need a change?
Bustr isn't trolling you. He's just asking you to be more specific in your request, if you can.
-
There is already performance degradation when a plane loses half of a wing. If you've ever lost half a wing, you already know this. I believe HT has put a good amount of thought, research and effort into the damage model. If you think something is wrong with it and you want to be taken seriously, then you need to come up with something better than "I wish there was a flight characteristic change when you shoot off 1/2 a planes wing". What specifically about the "flight characteristics" need a change?
Bustr isn't trolling you. He's just asking you to be more specific in your request, if you can.
Maybe he is talking about losing parts in 1/4's increments or something? 1/4-1/2-3/4/All. (good wish huh?) and having the damaged plane perform as such.
Kind of like getting engine damage, but you can still fly as nothing is wrong.. :headscratch:
Coogan
-
Maybe he is talking about losing parts in 1/4's increments or something? 1/4-1/2-3/4/All. (good wish huh?) and having the damaged plane perform as such.
Kind of like getting engine damage, but you can still fly as nothing is wrong.. :headscratch:
Coogan
What we have now is, either 1/2 the wing is missing or all of the wing is missing and the damaged plane performs as such. I'd be okay with having two more steps, but I don't think that's what the OP is asking for. I think he is asking for the amount or level of 'degradation' to be increased. If that's the wish, it needs to be way more specific.
-
What we have now is, either 1/2 the wing is missing or all of the wing is missing and the damaged plane performs as such. I'd be okay with having two more steps, but I don't think that's what the OP is asking for. I think he is asking for the amount or level of 'degradation' to be increased. If that's the wish, it needs to be way more specific.
I believe you're right. (I had to re-read the OP..) To me, it sounds the wish was for more degradation in the planes performance when wing damaged.
Myself, I have not had that problem. Usually when I lose a wing the plane changes characteristics immediately.
Coogan
-
I believe you're right. (I had to re-read the OP..) To me, it sounds the wish was for more degradation in the planes performance when wing damaged.
Myself, I have not had that problem. Usually when I lose a wing the plane changes characteristics immediately.
Coogan
Same here.
-
Same here.
:cheers:
Coogan
-
Same here.
He’s complaining about other planes not his own.
His premise does have a point.
-
To make it very simple, he is complaining about after shooting off half a wing you still have a 10-15 minute chase to finish them off because they dont seem to lose ANY speed with that damage.
While no engineer, it seems to me that it should be very easy to catch a damaged plane (missing half a wing) very quickly should I choose to go after them.
-
He’s complaining about other planes not his own.
His premise does have a point.
That he has no idea what correct is, but he thinks what is there is wrong? It's not that tremendously useful of a point.
Wiley.
-
That he has no idea what correct is, but he thinks what is there is wrong? It's not that tremendously useful of a point.
Wiley.
I’d say he highlighted an issue that’s worthy of discussion. What ultimately comes of it is anyone’s guess, but the point is he has one.
-
I’d say he highlighted an issue that’s worthy of discussion.
What issue? He hasn't defined what correct should be.
By who? A bunch of people who don't have any better of an idea what correct is than he does?
Wiley.
-
What issue? He hasn't defined what correct should be.
By who? A bunch of people who don't have any better of an idea what correct is than he does?
Wiley.
He gave a reasonable expectation. I’m inclined to agree with him.
-
He gave a reasonable expectation. I’m inclined to agree with him.
What reasonable expectation? He says they should go slower. Based on what? Anything concrete? Not that I've seen. My point is, he hasn't proven something is wrong. He just feels it should go slower because reasons. It's worthless noise. May as well say they should go faster. Both statements carry equal weight.
Wiley.
-
What reasonable expectation? He says they should go slower. Based on what? Anything concrete? Not that I've seen. My point is, he hasn't proven something is wrong. He just feels it should go slower because reasons. It's worthless noise. May as well say they should go faster. Both statements carry equal weight.
Wiley.
We’ve already been down this road.
No, both statements do not carry equal weight. If planes with a mangled, unfaired half wing performed better than those without then they’d be designed that way from the outset.
If Hitech simplified things for the sake of gameplay or ease of programming that’s his prerogative. I have no dog in this fight.
-
You still haven't described how much more drag that end is causing versus how much drag the missing part of the wing creates. You haven't even shown that that drag change isn't modeled.
Wiley.
-
You still haven't described how much more drag that end is causing versus how much drag the missing part of the wing creates. You haven't even shown that that drag change isn't modeled.
Wiley.
Previously addressed.
We are gong in circles here.
It is what it is.
-
Previously addressed.
By saying a roken wing creates drag but we can't describe the difference between that and the missing part of the wing. Yup. Conclusive proof something is wrong. :aok
Wiley.
-
how much drag is added by rudder and ailiron input to counteract to loss of the half wing is there. I know I have to add a ton of input to keep it in the air. Shouldn't you lose speed for that?
-
By saying a roken wing creates drag but we can't describe the difference between that and the missing part of the wing. Yup. Conclusive proof something is wrong. :aok
Wiley.
Again, previously addressed. Your attempt to misrepresent the argument = fail.
-
how much drag is added by rudder and ailiron input to counteract to loss of the half wing is there. I know I have to add a ton of input to keep it in the air. Shouldn't you lose speed for that?
Yes there should. (Among a dozen other things.)
I mentioned this previously and Wiley has now zipped right past it all in a boomeranging attempt to ridicule.
The real question is...did the OP encounter an airplane with an energy state disparity that masked these previously mentioned aerodynamic effects?
-
how much drag is added by rudder and ailiron input to counteract to loss of the half wing is there. I know I have to add a ton of input to keep it in the air. Shouldn't you lose speed for that?
Don't we? I have been under the impression our control surfaces create drag. Same with not flying straight through the air.
Wiley.
-
Being modeled doesn't mean modeled accurately. (I'm not saying it's inaccurate either.)
You can be darned sure a mangled wing will create loads of drag. All you have to do is look at VGs on the cockpit hump of a G-Whiz or a Legacy to know that.
Is this what you call "addressing" it? By saying the above?
You still haven't shown what isn't modeled ingame currently. You haven't defined anything about the behavior of the plane that should be different than what's currently there other than "it should be slower because of drag that I cannot quantify."
Wiley.
-
Is this what you call "addressing" it? By saying the above?
You still haven't shown what isn't modeled ingame currently. You haven't defined anything about the behavior of the plane that should be different than what's currently there other than "it should be slower because of drag that I cannot quantify."
Wiley.
I am under no obligation to do so. (You have yet to prove it is correct, despite what appears to be quite a bit of emotional investment, insistence, and intransigence on the subject.) Not that it would matter. I’m also not about to question the flight model. I prefer to stay out of the gulag.
The OP’s premise has merit, your attempt to belittle it/me via demands to essentially “prove a negative” notwithstanding.
I honestly don’t care either way. It is an aspect of the game I’m aware of and deal with accordingly. However, the insults directed at the OP and anyone who acknowledges his point are at best bizarre.
-
Simply put, I do not like people who have no facts trying to get things changed based on a complete lack of knowledge and only generalizations.
Wiley.
-
Simply put, I do not like people who have no facts trying to get things changed based on a complete lack of knowledge and only generalizations.
Wiley.
Complete lack of knowledge? That’s quite a risky accusation considering the company you’re in.
-
Complete lack of knowledge? That’s quite a risky accusation considering the company you’re in.
Well, you can't quantify the drag that you feel may or not be modeled. Is that a knowledgeable position? "Complete" is incorrect. Can we agree on "lack of specifics" then?
Wiley.
-
Well, you can't quantify the drag that you feel may or not be modeled. Is that a knowledgeable position? "Complete" is incorrect. Can we agree on "lack of specifics" then?
Wiley.
I already agreed on that somewhere around my second post in this thread. Without a wind tunnel I cannot measure it.
A couple of my friends had a midair with a 737. They took off part of his wing and he crashed. Their plane lost a winglet, a fraction of the elevator, and maybe a bit of the wing leading edge. They are lucky to have landed in one piece. It was an effort.
Game concessions are fine. We know they exist. I think the OP is asking a valid question.
-
I already agreed on that somewhere around my second post in this thread. Without a wind tunnel I cannot measure it.
A couple of my friends had a midair with a 737. They took off part of his wing and he crashed. Their plane lost a winglet, a fraction of the elevator, and maybe a bit of the wing leading edge. They are lucky to have landed in one piece. It was an effort.
Game concessions are fine. We know they exist. I think the OP is asking a valid question.
And I disagree that it's a valid question. Without being able to quantify what's being done currently, you can't say it's wrong. Well, you can, but it's a meaningless statement.
Wiley.
-
And I disagree that it's a valid question. Without being able to quantify what's being done currently, you can't say it's wrong. Well, you can, but it's a meaningless statement.
Wiley.
Respectfully, who made you Supreme Arbiter here?
It is a perfectly valid question based on the OP's premise. Questions are the basis for discovery and knowledge.
-
Who died and made you Supreme Arbiter?
It is a perfectly valid question based on the OP's premise. Questions are the basis for discovery and knowledge.
They are, but where's the question? He's clearly saying he doesn't think the current behavior is correct and that it should be different, based on nothing.
Wiley.
-
They are, but where's the question? He's clearly saying he doesn't think the current behavior is correct and that it should be different, based on nothing.
Wiley.
Based on common sense and anecdotal experience, which is why I asked my follow up query on the latter.
-
Based on common sense and anecdotal experience, which is why I asked my follow up query on the latter.
My point earlier in the thread is, based on my own common sense and anecdotal experience of losing half of wing, I would disagree with the OP that something needs addressed. My plane loses significant performance each time I shed half a wing. Sometimes I am able to fly the plane back to base. Other times the performance degradation is such that landing the plane is impossible.
Wiley is correct here, if the OP thinks something needs to be changed, he should come up with something better "I wish there was a flight characteristic change when you shoot off 1/2 a planes wing." Coming in here saying "this should be changed because I think so", spouting anecdotal evidence, isn't gonna get you far.
-
My point earlier in the thread is, based on my own common sense and anecdotal experience of losing half of wing, I would disagree with the OP that something needs addressed. My plane loses significant performance each time I shed half a wing. Sometimes I am able to fly the plane back to base. Other times the performance degradation is such that landing the plane is impossible.
Wiley is correct here, if the OP thinks something needs to be changed, he should come up with something better "I wish there was a flight characteristic change when you shoot off 1/2 a planes wing." Coming in here saying "this should be changed because I think so", spouting anecdotal evidence, isn't gonna get you far.
+1 Haven`t seen a single video proof or actual in game performance comparison in this topic.
-
My point earlier in the thread is, based on my own common sense and anecdotal experience of losing half of wing, I would disagree with the OP that something needs addressed. My plane loses significant performance each time I shed half a wing. Sometimes I am able to fly the plane back to base. Other times the performance degradation is such that landing the plane is impossible.
Wiley is correct here, if the OP thinks something needs to be changed, he should come up with something better "I wish there was a flight characteristic change when you shoot off 1/2 a planes wing." Coming in here saying "this should be changed because I think so", spouting anecdotal evidence, isn't gonna get you far.
That’s your prerogative. I disagree with you then as well.
The OP’s premise has merit.
Thus the next logical question is one I previously posed: Did something mask the effects of the opponent’s aircraft losing its wing (i.e. a higher than usual energy state)?
-
I don't know about anyone else, but unless I happen to be nearly level and flying straight when it happens, the first thing that usually happens on losing a wingtip is you lose a bunch of alt getting it righted. That would generally result in a bunch of speed gain.
Wiley.
-
Wiley I am not gonna quote all your statements but,
Again I am no engineer of any kind, didn't really do well in math or science in school. I am only saying COMMON since says a a 1/2 wing degrotaed plane can not out run three planes that have zero damage to there planes structure. You and buster act like I said something horrible about the game and the programming of the game. It's not like I a screaming and hollering threatening to cancel my account over the issue. I do t program games or code games hell its taking me two days to get a ssd installed and programmed in my computer.
I am saying that it's ar arcadic and cheesy to get 1/2 a wing off a plane and they out run you back to there base. I was in tank town last night in a spit and I got 1/2 my wing shot and I exited the fights with the rooks (3) of them in the air and landed my kills.
Let's do a a very basic experiment. Take two identical model airplanes. Let's say F4uds. Make one whole and the other has a damaged wing either wing is fine for what I am thinking. Give both planes to a 6yr old (just for you V). Tell him to play fighter planes with them. I guarantee the whole plane shoots down the damaged wing plane every time. Now this don't prove any forces or lift vectors or any scientific evidence other than even a child will realize that a damaged plane will not be a formidable component.
My only thing for the wish was a little more performance loss. Again I do t think the plane should fall out of the sky. I also do t think a 1/2 winged plane should out run a undamaged plane. I do t think we need wind tunnel test and joules performance tests and real world planes with 1/2 tests. Maybe just a lil common sense.
-
And I will try to post the films I have of the 1/2 winged wonders out running me.
-
Try flying with half a wing, then get back to us.
-
Wiley I am not gonna quote all your statements but,
Again I am no engineer of any kind, didn't really do well in math or science in school. I am only saying COMMON since says a a 1/2 wing degrotaed plane can not out run three planes that have zero damage to there planes structure. You and buster act like I said something horrible about the game and the programming of the game. It's not like I a screaming and hollering threatening to cancel my account over the issue. I do t program games or code games hell its taking me two days to get a ssd installed and programmed in my computer.
I am saying that it's ar arcadic and cheesy to get 1/2 a wing off a plane and they out run you back to there base. I was in tank town last night in a spit and I got 1/2 my wing shot and I exited the fights with the rooks (3) of them in the air and landed my kills.
Let's do a a very basic experiment. Take two identical model airplanes. Let's say F4uds. Make one whole and the other has a damaged wing either wing is fine for what I am thinking. Give both planes to a 6yr old (just for you V). Tell him to play fighter planes with them. I guarantee the whole plane shoots down the damaged wing plane every time. Now this don't prove any forces or lift vectors or any scientific evidence other than even a child will realize that a damaged plane will not be a formidable component.
My only thing for the wish was a little more performance loss. Again I do t think the plane should fall out of the sky. I also do t think a 1/2 winged plane should out run a undamaged plane. I do t think we need wind tunnel test and joules performance tests and real world planes with 1/2 tests. Maybe just a lil common sense.
The only problem I have is with your claim. Your claim is that a plane missing half a wing will go significantly slower than one that is not. The only thing about that situation that will affect top speed is drag. That drag is going to come from the hollow hole at the end of the broken part of the wing, and it will be some number.
Now, that drag coming from that hole will be offset by the amount of drag that the missing portion of wing would have produced back before the wing was damaged so it is not going to be a straight addition. It is going to be the difference between the original drag of the relatively large section of the wing that had been going through the air and providing lift. Do you know how much drag that much surface area getting pulled through air and providing lift causes? Me either, but I would be surprised if it is not fairly significant compared to a ragged hole that most likely broke off near one of the supports so it isn't completely hollow. I also bet HT could tell you reasonably accurately within the sim how much drag that part of the wing causes. The broken tip likely is fudged a bit because not a lot of opportunities to put a warbird with a shot off wing in a wind tunnel occur these days.
I am reasonably certain though the broken tip would cause more so on that we agree.
Then comes the yaw that asymmetrical drag is going to create on that plane. That will pull the plane to that side until the air going over the opposite side of the fuselage and the rudder the pilot may need to apply reaches equilibrium. This will add drag as well.
All that above means there will be some amount of drag added to the plane that will slow it down. Which brings us to the only question that matters in this situation: By how much?
Then, as has been stated up thread, 9 times out of ten the plane goes into a dive which will allow it to gain speed past where the engine could maintain it.
Does the game accurately reflect the top speed difference that would occur in that condition? Does it change top speed when the wing is gone at all? Do you even know the answers to those two questions? And then there is the question of how much it should be in the real world, and are the two different?
All you have is an anecdote of a fast plane going into a dive with half a wing and at least temporarily going faster than pursuing planes of indeterminate type. But your com-wait, your COMMON sense tells you that damaged plane should be slower so somebody needs to justify it to you.
I am disinclined to post another bustresque wall of text about the turning but the short version is turning is a function of lift. Do you know how much lift that plane has, how much is lost by losing that wing tip and how much is required to make the turn? Without those 3 things, it's all meaningless.
Wiley.
-
ar arcadic and cheesy to get 1/2 a wing off a plane and they out run you back to there base.
I doubt it happened as you say. It is simply too difficult to fly with one wing to be able to do any serious maneuvering. You might dive for speed to regain control but if you pull any G the airplane rolls toward the stub wing, pull to hard and the roll can't be countered. A one wing airplane just isn't going to be a serious threat.
-
I doubt it happened as you say. It is simply too difficult to fly with one wing to be able to do any serious maneuvering. You might dive for speed to regain control but if you pull any G the airplane rolls toward the stub wing, pull to hard and the roll can't be countered. A one wing airplane just isn't going to be a serious threat.
A Ki84 at flaps speed might be able to maneuver to get guns on if the other guy did the wrong thing. I have been in desperate situations with missing wing tips where I could vaguely maneuver at low speeds in an f4u and the Ki. But it would require the opponent to go to the right spot.
Wiley.
-
A Ki84 at flaps speed might be able to maneuver to get guns on if the other guy did the wrong thing. I have been in desperate situations with missing wing tips where I could vaguely maneuver at low speeds in an f4u and the Ki. But it would require the opponent to go to the right spot.
Wiley.
Anyone that lets a one wing airplane shoot them down needs to sell their HOTAS gear and take up solitaire. :)
-
Just saying it's possible. :lol Same when people have gotten greedy when I was dead stick and common sense would dictate I should be dead. The only thing that matters is physics.
Wiley.
-
Anyone that lets a one wing airplane shoot them down needs to sell their HOTAS gear and take up solitaire. :)
:rofl
Coogan
-
A single wing plane WILL fly slower simply due to the added drag required to keep it flying straight.
How much so is the interesting question.
-
I kinda like the point/counter-point of this discussion.
Especially Wiley & Vraciu. They are throwing punches back and forth, but both are making quite valid statements. (in quite a mature way should I add)
Good reading. Please proceed.
:cheers: To you both.
Coogan
-
The only problem I have is with your claim. Your claim is that a plane missing half a wing will go significantly slower than one that is not. The only thing about that situation that will affect top speed is drag. That drag is going to come from the hollow hole at the end of the broken part of the wing, and it will be some number.
Now, that drag coming from that hole will be offset by the amount of drag that the missing portion of wing would have produced back before the wing was damaged so it is not going to be a straight addition. It is going to be the difference between the original drag of the relatively large section of the wing that had been going through the air and providing lift. Do you know how much drag that much surface area getting pulled through air and providing lift causes? Me either, but I would be surprised if it is not fairly significant compared to a ragged hole that most likely broke off near one of the supports so it isn't completely hollow. I also bet HT could tell you reasonably accurately within the sim how much drag that part of the wing causes. The broken tip likely is fudged a bit because not a lot of opportunities to put a warbird with a shot off wing in a wind tunnel occur these days.
I am reasonably certain though the broken tip would cause more so on that we agree.
Then comes the yaw that asymmetrical drag is going to create on that plane. That will pull the plane to that side until the air going over the opposite side of the fuselage and the rudder the pilot may need to apply reaches equilibrium. This will add drag as well.
All that above means there will be some amount of drag added to the plane that will slow it down. Which brings us to the only question that matters in this situation: By how much?
Then, as has been stated up thread, 9 times out of ten the plane goes into a dive which will allow it to gain speed past where the engine could maintain it.
Does the game accurately reflect the top speed difference that would occur in that condition? Does it change top speed when the wing is gone at all? Do you even know the answers to those two questions? And then there is the question of how much it should be in the real world, and are the two different?
All you have is an anecdote of a fast plane going into a dive with half a wing and at least temporarily going faster than pursuing planes of indeterminate type. But your com-wait, your COMMON sense tells you that damaged plane should be slower so somebody needs to justify it to you.
I am disinclined to post another bustresque wall of text about the turning but the short version is turning is a function of lift. Do you know how much lift that plane has, how much is lost by losing that wing tip and how much is required to make the turn? Without those 3 things, it's all meaningless.
Wiley.
Damn man. Didn’t mean to piss you off. Glad I didn’t tell you I wished for the Easter bunny to visit the house a few weeks ago. My kids would have been sorely disappointed.
No one knows the drag of an airplane winging breaking off, because no two planes are gonna break the same each time. I am gonna do a lil bustring research and put a lil evidence of my WISH. I will also find those films Monday night and post them up I been pretty busy today and evidently don’t put as much into someone’s else’s wish as you guys. But I can assure there is not a single account of a plane being half winged and out running another plane that was all ready in a fight with it with “like speed and alt”. But I will get back with you.
-
I doubt it happened as you say. It is simply too difficult to fly with one wing to be able to do any serious maneuvering. You might dive for speed to regain control but if you pull any G the airplane rolls toward the stub wing, pull to hard and the roll can't be countered. A one wing airplane just isn't going to be a serious threat.
Will post videos.
-
Damn man. Didn’t mean to piss you off. Glad I didn’t tell you I wished for the Easter bunny to visit the house a few weeks ago. My kids would have been sorely disappointed.
This isn't pissed off. This is just pointing out you're asking for something you don't understand, based on information you don't have, and want it changed based on an anecdote you don't understand and can't explain.
No one knows the drag of an airplane winging breaking off, because no two planes are gonna break the same each time.
Right, but being that this is a video game, concessions need to be made. There'd be a "broken wing" amount of drag. There already seemingly is a "broken wing" amount of drag. What do you have to say it's wrong? You can't describe what "right" is, you can't describe what it's doing now. And you claim it's unrealistic when you can't describe what realistic is or what it's doing now.
I am gonna do a lil bustring research and put a lil evidence of my WISH.
Your WISH to change a game that's based on an attempt at realism and some fairly significant amounts of math and calculation, but that doesn't matter because of your COMMON sense.
I will also find those films Monday night and post them up I been pretty busy today and evidently don’t put as much into someone’s else’s wish as you guys. But I can assure there is not a single account of a plane being half winged and out running another plane that was all ready in a fight with it with “like speed and alt”. But I will get back with you.
There's not much being put into it, it's just more common sense, and I type fast. :)
Wiley.
-
Anyone that lets a one wing airplane shoot them down needs to sell their HOTAS gear and take up solitaire. :)
Unless they are bombers, agreed. A half vinged 190 just keep on going for them buffs, and "just" makes up for a smaller target :D.
-
In the 38 if I'm heading uphill and can get slow or are slow enough to get flaps out when the wingtip comes off I can get some measure of control. Gotta be quick on the trim too. Not enough to fight anybody but enough to maybe make it back to land and that's all. Heading downhill or too fast - - forget about it. Too much bank in the wrong direction--same thing. Won't be able to stop the roll and once the nose drops you're picking up speed. No bueno. Ain't enough trim or cross controlling to get straight again.
Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
-
In the 38 if I'm heading uphill and can get slow or are slow enough to get flaps out when the wingtip comes off I can get some measure of control. Gotta be quick on the trim too. Not enough to fight anybody but enough to maybe make it back to land and that's all. Heading downhill or too fast - - forget about it. Too much bank in the wrong direction--same thing. Won't be able to stop the roll and once the nose drops you're picking up speed. No bueno. Ain't enough trim or cross controlling to get straight again.
Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Never really thought about it, but do 38s have a 2 part wingtip to lose like other planes? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there flaps inside the engine pod, and when you lose a wing(tip) you just lose what's outside the engine? Or is there a condition where there's a stub outside the engine remaining as well?
I don't fly 38s much and can't recall a wingtip shooting offhand. In everything though, you definitely need ALL the trim toward the long wing to keep in the air. In a 190/Ta I generally find I need all the trim, and about 1/3 to 1/2 deflection on my stick to maintain something resembling level flight. I also generally find mid-high speed works best to stay in control, I seem to recall getting into dives that were too fast to pull out of as the asymmetrical lift just caused it to roll regardless of aileron input on many occasions.
190s can do relatively well with a wingtip shot off. I actually had a kill in an A8 a few seconds after I lost both wingtips (pulled too hard out of a dive) and the guy was running down a friendly in front of me as I was leveling out to limp home. I still had rudder and elevator and he pretty much flew into my gunsite. If I remember right I couldn't keep it together when I got slow enough to land though.
I can't recall ever thinking about making another pass on a bomber when I was missing a wingtip as Save describes though, just because I usually wind up below them after a pass and climbing back up to make a decent pass would take too long if it is even possible, it just never occurred to me to try. A coalt pass would be a weak, slow side or rear shot which is just suicide so I never bothered.
Wiley.
-
Never really thought about it, but do 38s have a 2 part wingtip to lose like other planes? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there flaps inside the engine pod, and when you lose a wing(tip) you just lose what's outside the engine? Or is there a condition where there's a stub outside the engine remaining as well?
I don't fly 38s much and can't recall a wingtip shooting offhand. In everything though, you definitely need ALL the trim toward the long wing to keep in the air. In a 190/Ta I generally find I need all the trim, and about 1/3 to 1/2 deflection on my stick to maintain something resembling level flight. I also generally find mid-high speed works best to stay in control, I seem to recall getting into dives that were too fast to pull out of as the asymmetrical lift just caused it to roll regardless of aileron input on many occasions.
190s can do relatively well with a wingtip shot off. I actually had a kill in an A8 a few seconds after I lost both wingtips (pulled too hard out of a dive) and the guy was running down a friendly in front of me as I was leveling out to limp home. I still had rudder and elevator and he pretty much flew into my gunsite. If I remember right I couldn't keep it together when I got slow enough to land though.
I can't recall ever thinking about making another pass on a bomber when I was missing a wingtip as Save describes though, just because I usually wind up below them after a pass and climbing back up to make a decent pass would take too long if it is even possible, it just never occurred to me to try. A coalt pass would be a weak, slow side or rear shot which is just suicide so I never bothered.
Wiley.
It's just the wing section outboard of the engine. And you're correct about the rolling at speed, which is why you have to slow down, trim up as best you can and get flaps out for lift and quickly too, otherwise you're riding a barrel roll into the ground. Once you get inverted that's about it usually.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
It's just the wing section outboard of the engine. And you're correct about the rolling at speed, which is why you have to slow down, trim up as best you can and get flaps out for lift and quickly too, otherwise you're riding a barrel roll into the ground. Once you get inverted that's about it usually.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That sounds about right. Based on that, my usual schtick when I get a wingtip shot off would spell doom. I can't recall offhand ever saving a 38 once a wingtip was gone, although I've landed them missing an astonishingly large number of other parts. :) Thanks for the info. :salute
Wiley.