Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: funkedup on May 24, 2002, 04:58:57 PM
-
Do I remember some people in here saying rope-a-dope killing technique was not realistic? I was watching Wings last night and "Bud" Anderson told the story of his first kill in the Mustang, using his hands as airplanes to describe the fight. He described a perfect rope-a-dope with which he killed an ME-109G in his P-51B. :)
-
How could it not be realistic?
I have never seen it contested...
-
I don't know Pongo. I thought I remembered it being contested. Hell there are guys here who contest the fact that WW2 fighters can do consecutive loops! :)
-
I think it was just Artlaws who made an issue about it.
He had big time trouble in his personal life at that moment which no doubt lead to posting stuff without thinking clearly.
-
Yep... artlaws maintained it was a no-skill maneuver and would let you know every time he fell for it.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by funkedup
I don't know Pongo. I thought I remembered it being contested. Hell there are guys here who contest the fact that WW2 fighters can do consecutive loops! :)
oNE would think that as you exit a loop (level out) you should be at the same altitude, heading and airspeed as you were when you started it, and you should be able to immediately begin another loop.
-
Originally posted by Biggles
oNE would think that as you exit a loop (level out) you should be at the same altitude, heading and airspeed as you were when you started it, and you should be able to immediately begin another loop.
That would be true if there was no such thing as lift induced drag or gravity :p
Unfortunately, WWII aircraft do not have the power to weight ratio to make a big low-g circle. Pulling enough g's to complete the loop without stalling may also slow the aircraft down enough to stall anyways. So WWII aircraft had a minimum speed to enter a loop. At the completion of the loop, their speed would definitely be lower than the entry speed, normally too low to enter another loop depending on the g's pulled and the power-to-weight of the aircraft in question. Only aircraft which have enough thrust to compensate for both the induced drag and gravity can continuously pull loops without losing speed and/or altitude.
An aircraft like the Zero is pretty much ideal for low speed loops: good power to weight, very little drag, and a small turn radius. High speed loops are actually performed more efficiently by energy fighters that use their low parasitic drag-to-weight ratio to zoom through the loop with minimal speed losses (induced drag for a given g-loading is inherently lower at higher speeds, so parasitic drag becomes more important). A clean, heavy (high-wing loaded) fighter with a high power-to-weight ratio always steals the show in terms of vertical performance (enter the F-4 Phantom and F-15 Eagle).
-
See???
-
Crap..I've broken the laws of physics then!
Daff
-
in the probable furballs seen in ww2 i would imagine goin for the rope would be a risky maneuever and likely discouraged.
Not only is the con going slow but you are too.. in a multi bogie engagement...
SKurj
-
So Streakeagle a maneuver like a Lazy Eight would also be impossible to perform consecutively, right?
Dive to entry speed, do the rolling pull up (right or left) so as to be at 90 degrees of bank at 90 degrees of turn and a few mph above stall speed, continue in a diving turn so as to roll out 180 degrees off your original heading, at your entry speed and at your entry altitude.
That would be impossible right? To keep going on and on like that, just continuing the maneuver until you got tired of it?
-
Rope a dope would be far more effective if AH modelled sun glare and its icons didnt give distance past d500.
-
Well in "Real Life" Tac, we (well, those of us with 20/20) could tell we were at 325 yards because that's where we could distinguish 10 inch high numerals as numerals and not letters.
10 inch x 2 inch numerals. At 1000 feet.
If we could see like that in here we wouldn't need icons at all.
But we can't.
And I'm so sorry to say this but your comments about visual cues in various threads around here have convinced me you have never really done much flying and looking at other aircraft while doing so. Particularly in the upper altitudes where the air is much, much more clear and visual ranges increase dramatically.
In fact, your comments about visual cues here remind me of your comments about "buff guns" being different and more powerful than fighter guns of the same caliber. :D
-
skurj?
where there air combat enviroments in ww2 more densely poplulated then the main? I doubt it.
If getting wailed on while hung up yourself by an unengaged bogey is what makes the rope ineffective in ww2. then it makes it more ineffective in the game. Because the game is (I contend) more densley populated with fighters then any airspace in ww2 was.
-
..and as for sun glare......
Last night I pursued a 110 that went up and over into the sun. I momentarily lost him till he came out of the bright white light.
Would that be like "sun glare"?
It's there.. it's just obviously not modeled to your satisfaction. Sort of different than "not modeled", right?
-
Geez Skurj, you better tell Bud Anderson! I'm sure he'll feel extra lucky to have survived. ;)
Streak all I can say is get up from your computer and go to an airshow some time. Planes like a Spit LF 9 or Sea Fury have plenty of excess power to loop all day. :)
-
you can still see the con in the sun in ah if you cant adjust your gamma or put your glasses on.
-
I dont think sun effect has been modeled into AH as strong as it is in real life.. At least I can't focus my eyes anywhere near the sun for more than half a second.
-
take your hormones frogboy and chill.
How did
"Rope a dope would be far more effective "
read to you as
"Well in "Real Life" " ?
Sun glare in AH only works if the plane is straight on top of the sun.. and even then its icon is highly visible. Ever played PACIFIC STRIKE? It had a nice sun glare effect, you couldnt see nothing but a yellow glow and the sun glare light effect if you looked in the direction of the sun. I liked that.
As far as the rangefinder goes, im convinced we'd get far more better gunnery gameplay if they didnt give range past d500.
"In fact, your comments about visual cues here remind me of your comments about "buff guns" being different and more powerful than fighter guns of the same caliber."
When my nose gunned P-38 is capable of killing a d1.8 con flying away from me with a few hits I'll believe that. I can do this in a buff, not in a fighter with the "same" 50 cals. But then again, all this does is piss off HT and I dont give a flying diddly about the buff guns anymore. And thus you dont see any more posts like that. Unless of course you want to bring them up for good ol times sake ;)
-
planes in the sun do not have icons in AH
50 cal nose guns of buffs have the same range as 50 cals on fighters . Know why ? Becuase they're exactly the same . Basically your saying that you still don't understand why rearward firing guns have longer range ?!? Still !? You want your p38's guns to have the range of a b17's tail guns ? Fly it backwards .
-
for the half a instant the plane is completely under the sun samm. The moment a little piece of it goes outside the sun its icon pops out, big n' screaming. It would be very cool if the icon and plane were hidden if they were inside a circle area... say, if you take the sun's size and expand it 8X .. anything inside that circle would be blocked by a yellow/white streak of light. Then we might have some great bounces :)
-
"Frogboy"? That's your rebuttal? How creative and imaginative. :D
1. So we all agree sun glare IS modeled. Obviously not to some folks satisfaction, but it IS there.
2. Obviously Tac still does not accept/understand what HT told him.... repeatedly... about "buff guns" but at least he's figured out he's better off not asking/accusing again.
3. Now "icons off" is improved gameplay. What happened to the old desire for "realism with icons off"? Finally realize that you don't know what it should look like at 20k? :)
Thanks. A good update that made me laugh before bagging it for the night.
-
Originally posted by SKurj
in the probable furballs seen in ww2 i would imagine goin for the rope would be a risky maneuever and likely discouraged.
Not only is the con going slow but you are too.. in a multi bogie engagement...
SKurj
Rope-a-Dope was a very common tactic, it's pretty much a basic energy fighting maneuver. Corsair pilots used to use a right hand spiral climb to rope Japanese planes.
Ack-Ack
-
Toad, soory to point it oout but you're sounding like a real fanboy here....
Although I don't agree with Tac on every point, the sunglare as it is modelled in AH isn't very convincing.
Sunglare in WB was much more effective and realistic-looking.
As you said it, high altitude air is much clearer: sun is hence much brighter too.
-
Originally posted by SKurj
in the probable furballs seen in ww2 i would imagine goin for the rope would be a risky maneuever and likely discouraged.
Not only is the con going slow but you are too.. in a multi bogie engagement...
SKurj
There's a good example of a failed rope in 'Aces Against Japan' where a zero piloted by an ace tried the rope against a P-39s but got wacked. The P-39 had just dove into the furball and the zeke under-estimated his speed. Sound familiar? :)
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Toad, soory to point it oout but you're sounding like a real fanboy here....
Although I don't agree with Tac on every point, the sunglare as it is modelled in AH isn't very convincing.
Sunglare in WB was much more effective and realistic-looking.
As you said it, high altitude air is much clearer: sun is hence much brighter too.
Yes, but the sunlight is scattered less, which means that you have to be looking even more directly at it to be blinded, as fewer of the rays will be coming from somewhere other than directly from the Sun, 93 million miles away.
Plus, we've all read in Shaw how Boyington used to block out the sun with his pinky while scanning the sky. This won't work for a close con while you're maneuvering, true, but in such a case, it won't be in the sun long, either.
-
toad goes to work and programs an airborne computer all day and has no idea what real flying is :D
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
That would be true if there was no such thing as lift induced drag or gravity :p
Unfortunately, WWII aircraft do not have the power to weight ratio to make a big low-g circle.
S!
This been discussed before and if my memory reserves it was Lephturn, who pointed out an article about the biplane that made almost 200(?) consecutive loops before he stopped it. This was way before WWII. Yes it was biplane, but considering WWII fighters having way better power/weight ratio, why shouldn't they be able to do them?
-
Vector the biplanes were called 'kite's for a reason :)
-
deselys, I flew WB too. And AW DOS on Genie, WW2OL and most every box flying game that has come out since about 1989. I'm aware of what other games offer.
Is sunglare in AH perfectly realistic? No. And unlike another poster here, I have actually chased other aircraft around the sky from the deck up to about 35,000 feet. So, I have a reasonable idea of "sun glare". Sunglare depends on a lot of things like time of day, sky condition, sight angle and more. I suspect it would be very, very difficult to actually program ALL of this stuff in an entirely "realistic" way. Lots of games have tried. None have gotten it "right", IMO.
However, to flatly state "if AH modelled sun glare" implies that it isn't modeled at all. Which, of course, is blatantly incorrect. It's almost as blatantly incorrect as saying something like "buffs have turbolasers, fighters only have .50 cals or short range cannons at best".
Now it is true that this particular sun glare comment may have caught me at a weak moment when I was susceptible wasting my time answering the urge to correct absurd statements.
Nonetheless, sunglare is modeled. To say it is not is merely another baseless accusation slung at HTC.
If it isn't modeled the way you wish, make a constructive suggestion. Provide some examples. There's pictures of aircraft in the sun all over the net.
But don't sling out "AH doesn't model sun glare" because that simply isn't true.
-
So anyway, back to the Rope-a-Dope and Clarence "Bud" Anderson:
Here's one of the most exciting air combat stories I've read, from Bud's book, "To Fly and Fight". My impression is that the fight described here contains two Rope-a-Dopes, one successful, and the other not, with disastrous implications for the pilot...
"He Was Someone Who Was Trying to Kill Me, Is All" (http://www.cebudanderson.com./ch1.htm)
Would you guys agree?
-
Of course, I'm not always at work Cit. :D
I'm flying lead with my Dad in the back seat. My brother is flying wing. The photo plane was a T-6. We got on the cover of Trade-a-Plane with a shot taken that day over the Golden Gate.
We were tucked in real tight, maybe 3 foot wingtip clearance and everything went well until.......
we turned and put the sun behind the leader, the T-6. Then we totally lost sight of him and both my brother and myself crashed into the T-6 and everyone was killed. Because you know you cant' see at all when the sun is behind another plane. :D
http://www.geocities.com/kcghostsquadron/CAF-Planes/Twin-PTs.jpg
After we were all reborn and grew up and learned to fly again, my brother rebuilt this BT-13. I've got some time in it too. Unfortunately, it has no computers so I just sit in the seat on the ground and go "vroooom, vrooomm... rat-a-tat-tat".
http://www.geocities.com/kcghostsquadron/CAF-Planes/BT13-501-1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/kcghostsquadron/CAF-Planes/BT13-501-2.jpg
This airplane has me pretty puzzled though. It seems to be able to do more consecutive loops than I want to do. It's kinda like the energizer bunny... if you hit your entry speed and altitude when you exit the loop (fly a good loop), danged if it won't go right up and do another one. What's up with that, anyway?
Sorry, I forgot geocities won't let you display directly. You'll have to click the link to see the pictures.
-
Hmm, links don't work either.
Let me try this.
First pic:
[img]
-
Second pic:
-
Third pic.. the BT took some resizing/cropping to get down to size.
-
Toad,
read my post again pls. I haven't said sun glare isn't modelled. Besides, I knew you came from WB. Hence the reference.
The way it is modelled now, hiding in the sun is almost impossible.
However, it was possible in WB. I don't say the way they (Hitech & Pyro, probably) modelled it was perfect, but it was a good compromise IMO.
Using the sun to delay being spotted was a widely used WWII aerial combat tactic. So the sun glare model should allow this tactic in a WWII flight sim. I'm sure you'll agree (gee I begin to sound like Lazs :eek: ).
I don't have any data to back up this post. It would need a huge research if we try to take most parameters into account anyway (and wouldn't be worth the effort). Nor do I have your flying experience...just enough to have experienced sun glare from a glider in a few cases (low sun at evening). I was just surprised and disappointed that someone with your experience would defend the sun glare as it is modelled in AH. Hence my (harsh) post....
I hope you'll join the lobby to make HTC adapt their sun glare model....but I'm afraid we won't get over with it without a bribe anyway ;)
-
i didn't say it was uncommon i said discouraged!! +)
I've never read anything that said its good to be close to stall speed in a dangerous multibogey engagement...
or even 1 v 1 +)
Pongo...
Sure the MA sees guys ropin amidst the swarms.. do u land every mission Pongo? +) guys in ww2 did, if they didn't DIE or bail into even worse situations than death, or if lucky into friendly hands.
SKurj
-
Originally posted by deSelys
...read my post again pls. I haven't said sun glare isn't modelled....
...So the sun glare model should allow this tactic in a WWII flight sim...
..I hope you'll join the lobby to make HTC adapt their sun glare model....but I'm afraid we won't get over with it without a bribe anyway ;)...
Deselys, please read my posts again. I never said YOU said "sun glare isn't modelled". After you, Alphonse! :)
TAC implied sun glare isn't modeled.
Nor did I say sun glare is "perfect" or even "adequate" in AH. Again, re-read my posts. I just pointed out that it IS modeled here and to imply that it is not is misleading and, I suspect, deliberately misleading.
Some people see the glass half empty and some see the glass half full. I'm clearly in the "half full" camp. Tac has demonstrated, at least to my satisfaction, with the continual "buff gun" debate that he is in the "half empty" group.
As for "joining the lobby", yes I think there could be a bit more glare effect. However allow me three points here:
1) I doubt most of the non-flyers here realize just how variable "sun glare" is based on time of day, sky condition, and angle off of the sun. Programming this is NOT going to be some simple thing if it is truly "done right".
2) There are a lot of other things I'd like to see HTC spend time on rather than sun glare effect. In short, it's a LOW priority item for me
3) I think in the MA style of fighting and given the other restrictions we suffer from internet lag and small 2D computer screens the problems we encounter are greater than in RL. Also in RL I don't think sun glare is the all-determing factor in a prolonged ACM style engagement (a bounce is different) that some non-pilots would like to make it. So, given the restrictions we work under on computers, enough difficulty has already be added to compensate for a less than realistic sun glare feature.
Just my .02.
-
Hey! Alphonse is my second name (not joking)! How did you know ;) ?
cc with you 3 points, and i'll comment them a bit later, coz I have to go and wife is giving me 'the look' again...
-
that chapter in bud andersons book is one of my favorites.
the most notable thing that i got outta that 'recollection' was bud's intense love for his plane, his absolute confidence in it's capabilities, and his determinitaion to be the one that left the fight alive.
reality is, had bud known just how good a plane the 109 really was in the vertical he'd probably never have tried it. As it was he got lucky as hell.. his carreer could have ended that day with just 1 cannon round tearing thru his fragile pony, hundereds of miles behind the lines...
bud's mindset is almost an exact mirror into the attitudes carried into combat by every competent fighter pilot of the war.. regardless of side, aircraft flown or circumstances.
It is without doubt that he was a VERY brave man. And so was the guy in the 109.
"i have under my hands the best gawdamned plane ever built, and i'm gonna kick the enemy's bellybutton with it... and gawd help the fool that thinks otherwize..."
as far as a rope-a-dope is concerned.. it had many names, many diffrent implementation techniques, many diffrent conclusions. It all boils down to evaluating the oppositions capabilities and energy state... correctly. Misjudge speed, time, distance and relative energy states and you die. It's almost always a 'chip cashing' move, for if you blow it; yer dead. Not a manuver for the feint of heart in a marginal airplane against a savvy opponent.
Unless yer in a flight sim/game with unlimited lives with nothing more at stake than pixel collection.
;)
-
Heya's,
Back to the topic of the thread. Is rope a dope realistic?
My answer is, of course you can do it IRL, the question is would you have the balls to do it.
Bud Anderson did it with his heart in his throat hoping his E wouldn't run out before the 109's did. And then in turn the 109 pilot did the same to him. Bud was maybe 20 years old at the time and still he did it more out of absolute self preservation than any predesigned plan of attack.
In AH we have the luxury of 50 years of hindsight and evaluation as well as the fact that we won't actually die if we are wrong.
I have read accounts of rookie pilots making bad decisions and breaking the cardinal law of fighting "uphill" and loosing there lives as a result. I have also read about Bong and McGuire B&Zing there way to 40 kills. But I don't know if any of us would actually try a rope a dope if the A6M5 behind us was really going to shoot at us with 2 20mill cannons and 12.7mill machine guns with no range markers or Pyro to complain to about the NIK2 being overmodeled. Just a long flaming ride into the ocean while screaming "The NIK is overmodeled......."
How many turn and burners and "quakers" do you think actually survived the war?
Would you risk this??
-
Back to Toad's last post:
your point 1: agreed, but a compromise should be possible to find, without getting to much into the details. I wouldn't change the way the plane is affected by the glare/reflection, but I would make the icon disappear farther from the center of the sun than now.
point 2: low priority indeed, but coding the solution proposed above shouldn't be too much work IMO (off course I may be wrong).
point 3: I agree completely. The main interest would be in bounces or when one wants to avoid detection.
-
Now, deselys, you are going to ask them to program a way for me to hold my finger up against the plexiglass and block a large percentage of the sun glare and make it just as easy as it is to do in RL right? ;)
And how much distance more from the center should the plane disappear? Exactly how large should the sun look in diameter anyway? Is the sun "scaled" correctly? Of course, this is going to be different depending on the size of the aircraft right? Because I'd think a little Yak could hide better than say a Lancaster.
Like I said, I have nothing against increasing it. But I'll wager no matter what HTC does, there'll still be complaining. Most likely by people who have never flown themselves, but complaining none the less. ;)
-
Toad, you know the game will never be perfectly realistic (the terms are contradicting each other anyway). But is it a reason not to improve a feature because, even if improved, it won't be perfect? Come on....
About the distance from the sun where icons begin to fade? Dunno. Let's use a rule of thumb....your thumb for instance: you did much flying, didn't you?
About the little finger thingie....low low low priority feature IMO.
About the whining: have you ever seen a change without some?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Like I said, I have nothing against increasing it.
Deselys, is this part confusing to you? :) I didn't say it couldn't be improved. This WHOLE line of discussion started with TAC basically saying it isn't modeled.
Yeah, I've done a LOT of flying.
My thumb is ~ 1 inch wide, a bit wider perhaps. So now you can figure out how wide to make it in the game. Scale it and the sun together. ;)
Yes, I've seen an AMAZING amount of change in AH accomplished without whining.
See, I believe like everyone's granny told them: "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar."
A lot a people have made suggestions in a polite, rational way that have been accepted and implemented.
I haven't seen all that much change result from whines, however.
When you stop and think about that from HTC's side of the desk, it's simply human nature isn't it?
The old "golden rule"? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
Who likes it when people whine at them all the long day?
-
Oops I think you misunderstood (prolly my english):
I was asking: have you ever seen a change in the game not followed by some whining here or there...like the new strat system, the clouds, or even the new bombers system....err, wait! People is already whining about it BEFORE 1.10!
Anyway, I wasn't implying that whining would help us get an imporved sun glare of course.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Now, deselys, you are going to ask them to program a way for me to hold my finger up against the plexiglass and block a large percentage of the sun glare and make it just as easy as it is to do in RL right? ;)
And how much distance more from the center should the plane disappear? Exactly how large should the sun look in diameter anyway? Is the sun "scaled" correctly? Of course, this is going to be different depending on the size of the aircraft right? Because I'd think a little Yak could hide better than say a Lancaster.
Like I said, I have nothing against increasing it. But I'll wager no matter what HTC does, there'll still be complaining. Most likely by people who have never flown themselves, but complaining none the less. ;)
Indeed you're not saying you don't want it. But you are giving so much elements against it that you play the devil's advocate a bit too well then.
My feeling is: you don't mind is the glare is widened....but you don't care if it stays the same.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
My feeling is: you don't mind is the glare is widened....but you don't care if it stays the same.
Yes, that's pretty close to how I feel.
I think it could be improved.
It's not an important item for me.
I view AH as a work always in progress. It never stops getting better. I'm a patient man.
Here we are about 3 years into the game and I still view what we have as the "skeleton" of the body of work that we will eventually have. We have, basically, the "bare bones".
As time goes by, HTC will add the internal organs, the muscle, the sinew and the flesh. It will take YEARS or perhaps even a decade before we truly have what HTC is visualizing even now.
That's how I see it.
So, I tend to be way over into the "glass is half full" or "cheerleader" group. I feel very comfortable there.
I see no point in discouraging or dumping on the 7 folks that are doing such a wonderful job at keeping literally thousands of WW2 aviation enthusiasts so entertained.
They are doing an incredibly GREAT job given the resources they utilize and the money they charge us. 50 cents a day! Amazing!
Why should we whine at them?
We should politely suggest things, respectfully ask questions and supply all the bloody help and documentaion we can find.
There is ABSOLUTELY no need to be an *sshole when making posts about the game. There's no need to "badger" them about any particular point. There's absolutely no need to show them disrespect. IMO, of course.
These people are our FRIENDS! They like what we like and they make it possible for us to play a great game every day.
We're all along on a great and wonderful ride. Let's just enjoy the journey, eh?
Like I said, I'm a patient man. That's how I view it.
-
saw the same show and agree with funked...
Bud even daid he saw the enemy aircraft 'shudder and stall' before he kicked the tail around and nailed him.
sweet episode of DW
-
Originally posted by oboe
So anyway, back to the Rope-a-Dope and Clarence "Bud" Anderson:
Here's one of the most exciting air combat stories I've read, from Bud's book, "To Fly and Fight". My impression is that the fight described here contains two Rope-a-Dopes, one successful, and the other not, with disastrous implications for the pilot...
"He Was Someone Who Was Trying to Kill Me, Is All" (http://www.cebudanderson.com./ch1.htm)
Would you guys agree?
Great read. Here's the part I like. Cut and pasted especially for the low flying furballing gamer whines :) "We'd picked up the bombers at 27,000 feet"
Oh and btw, I see now reason why anyone would contend the rope-a-dope as a historicly invalid consideration. However I would say that it would be a manuever (in real life) that would require teamwork, forethought and at least some serious thought to numbers. The rope-a-dope will normally leave the roper slow for some time, and thats nothing but bad when there are lots of badguys around, doesn't take a real life WW2 brain surgeon ace pilot to figure that out. Same goes for multiple loops, I'm certain there were airframes that could do that, I'm not so certain how wise it would be consistantly looping your aircraft around. Same goes for those who run around the MA in P38's continually throwing thier ride into a stall in order to get "the kill"... Stupid in real life. "Enter the Gamer" <<< "but this is just a game". The war between Flight SIM enthusiasts and GAMER enthusiasts will last until ...ahh, well, I guess until you REALLY die when you get killed in the game lol, or maybe each death costs ya about $5 bucks or 10 minutes...something like that lol :D
Tumor
-
No arguments just my two cents...
I fly the zero alot, and basically I only vary on the method of my loop; sometimes a corkscrew (draw them in on your six, break left, up, right, and back down to where you were, placing you behind bogey even if for only a moment on the bnz'ers), sometimes a full loop, and maybe two full loops, usually choosing my angle from the topside of it. Basically the only way I've been effective in my zero with bnz pilots is to use the zero like the red cloth at a bull fight...
After a few misses, they get mad and *shakes finger* start turning with me. Game over.
That's one on one, but with more than that I'm a slow moving target and I focus on evasion, mainly same procedures, loop and corkscrew, but I get down on the rudder to make some crazy angles; get lots of maneuver kills that way. Three or more bogeys and I die invariably :D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Is sunglare in AH perfectly realistic? No. And unlike another poster here, I have actually chased other aircraft around the sky from the deck up to about 35,000 feet. So, I have a reasonable idea of "sun glare".
While we're making disclaimers, I will point out that I've never piloted an aircraft a day in my life, and I'm too big to sit comfortably in the window seat of an airliner, so I don't know how the sun looks anywhere but at ground level.
I just know a lot of physics, is all, and like to point up simple objections to simple assumptions.