Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Vermillion on September 20, 2000, 07:40:00 AM
-
So has anyone else noticed the dramatic increase in the WB's style defensive manuevers since the release of 1.04?
Now, don't get me wrong, overall I love 1.04 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But one of the true joys of AH in the earlier versions was that you didn't see unrealistic defensive manuevers, where you did repeated Negative G manuevers and or rapid manuvers or cross controls intended to induced warping.
You just didn't have the E for it. You did one or two and if they didn't work you were left a wallowing pig and a easy target.
Thankfully, I don't see the microwarps or warp rolling in AH that I continually use to see in WB's. So at least its better in that respect.
But two WB's style manuevers I have seen on the rise lately:
1.) Continous Barrel Roll: Basically you just barrel roll your heart out, tightening and losening it, to avoid your attackers guns. Strangely, the aircraft that seems to be the best at this in AH is the N1K2. Last night several times I saw the old "congo line" of 5-6 aircraft chasing N1K2's for a couple of sectors while they merrily barrel rolled away. I sure wish Pyro would tweak the inverted lift profiles of our FM and this would probably go away.
2.)"The Elevator" or the "Porpoise": Ahh.. Isn't this one a classic? Where they continously yank the stick as hard as they can forward and backward, into blackout and redout, hoping to make you overshoot, or black/red out yourself to turn the tables. In real life, you could do that about twice before the pilot became so disoriented thru having the blood sucked out of his head and then slammed right back in rapidly, that he would quickly lose control.
Not a rant... just an observation.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
*beep* *beep**mmmmmmmmmm* <points rant-o-meter at Vermillion> Hmmm! I thought I had a reading but it's gone now.
------------------
Mighty1
The New Baby Harp Seals
"Come try to club THIS Seal"
-
I just got an idea. Would there be a way to code in a pilot wound type black out sequence following massive G fluctuations? There must be. Putting yourself into a +4G to -4G maneuver in a matter of seconds must be a very nasty shock to the system, and tiring to boot.
-
we need G modelling similar to WEP modelling on the engines...
this way you would have only so much strength built up to pull these high G forces and if you turn and burn and wear out your little virtual pilot hes gonna get tired and black out easier (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Anyone noticed this:
A couple hard G manuevers, and your "head" goes slack, for lack of a better description, and you find yourself with tunnel vision, looking at the floor of your cockpit, with your "head" kind of lolling around? stopping stick movement or pushing the stick forward does nothing to alieviate, and eventually you crash...
what's that about? is it that my pilot is wounded or something?
------------------
-
Citabria's right! I just remembered this "g-moddelling-feature" modelled in Falcon 4.0. Makes sense... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Kratzer:
what's that about? is it that my pilot is wounded or something?
Yep, do a Control D and you'll see "Pilot Wounded" highlited red.
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 09-21-2000).]
-
oops! Missed Kratzer's post... yup, when your pilot's wounded you'll get the "behavior" that you described in your post.
-
Originally posted by Kratzer:
Anyone noticed this:
A couple hard G manuevers, and your "head" goes slack, for lack of a better description, and you find yourself with tunnel vision, looking at the floor of your cockpit, with your "head" kind of lolling around? stopping stick movement or pushing the stick forward does nothing to alieviate, and eventually you crash...
what's that about? is it that my pilot is wounded or something?
You got Pilot Wounded. It will continue to get worse and in some cases you will actually die.
Mox
-
Fixing inverted lift and drag would go a loong way to fix those maneuvers.
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"
-
Originally posted by Daff:
Fixing inverted lift and drag would go a loong way to fix those maneuvers.
Fix it how?
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
By adding asymmetrical wings.
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"
-
Asymmetrical wings have been in since 1.04 daff.
HiTech
-
Better doublecheck the F4U-1D, then.
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"
-
Why's that?
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
hi
-
You mean, you really insist that a plane flying inverted got the same lift, drag and stall speed as upright?.
Daff
-
Another solution would be to model cumulative pilot fatigue, but I will start a seperate thread on that.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
daff do a snap roll inverted with a p38 on the deck and try to push forward on the stick to get out of it.
inverted lift and drag is modelled
-
Citabria, is that due to asymetrical lift of the wings, or is it due to elevator travel limits in that direction? Asking because I don't know the answer.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Originally posted by Daff:
You mean, you really insist that a plane flying inverted got the same lift, drag and stall speed as upright?.
Not at all. Do you know what the difference is? You seem to have this preoccupation with inverted flight like it dumps out a magical dragchute or something when the plane is inverted. We've been through this before, show me your math.
BTW, what do you think the performance impact should be? If you don't want to calculate, I'll gladly do that on what you think it should be.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
How about if HTC modeled engine oil so that when you fly inverted the engine would cut out after a certain amount of time? I would realy like to see this...
------------------
BEAT DOWN POSSE
www.theregulators.org/bdp
(http://pobox2.zyan.com/~nath/haha.jpg)
Aces High Scenario Corps
-
Yep. I had a Yak do 7 consecutive loops this morning, non-stop, trying to lose my 109-G2. He ended up with no engine after a blast of 7.92mm guns removed his radiator. This kinda stuff gets on my nerves to be honest. One reason I ran away from WBs was the horrid FM and stunts you could pull.
I don't pull that kind of stuff at all. Some odd maneuvers yes, but not 7 loops or endless scissoring. It's amazing some of the stuff you watch people pull. Especially when they see someone getting in position to kill them.
Personally, I'm ready to break out the Komet and give it to these types of pilots. It might be fast, but there's no way in Hell you'll kill a fighter with it. Why? Simple. Most any pilot checks his high-6 on a regular basis. One little turn and that Komet driver will lose his firing pass.
There are advantages to having an engine for more than 5 minutes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000
-
"How about if HTC modeled engine oil so that when you fly inverted the engine would cut out after a certain amount of time? I would realy like to see this..."
You mean in AH you can fly inverted endlessly without the engine locking up?
Bummer, never noticed it flying off-line.
------------------
Skybax
328th Fighter Squadron
www.352ndFighterGroup.com (http://www.352ndFighterGroup.com)
Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney
-
Flakbait ablity to loop indefinatly is not that hard to do.
Most of the planes in the game have a sustanainable g of 2.5 - 3.5 range.
A loop is nothing more then a sustained turn. As long as you don't execed the planes max sustained g you won't loose any e doing a loop.
HiTech
-
How about if HTC modeled engine oil so that when you fly inverted the engine would cut out after a certain amount of time? I would realy like to see this...
You mean for the non-radials right? Being an F4u dweeb.. I'd love to see this.
AKDejaVu
-
BTW, what do you think the performance impact should be? If you don't want to calculate, I'll gladly do that on what you think it should be.
Pyro,
It seems to me a plane would not have the same lift characteristics inverted. Its thrust would be the same, but in order to acheive the same angle of assent it would have to be positioned in a manner that induces more drag.
The coefficient you cite for the aircraft cannot be constant between inverted and normal flight. In one case, you are relying on the lift generated by the wings, in the other case you are fighting it. When fighting it, you increas drag by exposing more control surfaces to the violent air stream.
That seems to be logical to me. Feel free to let me know why this wouldn't happen. I'm somewhat curious about it.
AKDejaVu
-
DJ,
Pyro answered "Not at all." when Daff asked if he thought the lift/drag would be the same inverted.
I think what he was saying is that those parameters were not ignored and are present in the model.
Now those forces, while not ignored, may be coming out miscalculated. There have been FM bugs in the past, there will be in the future. However, I think Pyro was asking if anyone had more rigorous evidence than gut intuition. If anyone has some numbers I'm sure he'd be glad to look at them. I think the kind of tests Wells does, where he methodically test out the models and provides hard data, would be the most useful input for Pyro to examine.
I'm sure that Pyro is willing to listen to any reasonable input. I just think that there are some out there who come here from other sims, and aren't really interested in being part of the community, that have "other" agendas.
Regards,
Wab
[This message has been edited by AKWabbit (edited 09-21-2000).]
-
Pyro,
A suggested fix or deterence for the "porposing" problem: The immediate results of multiple rapid and/or prolonged high negative G forces on a real pilot pilot is burst blood vessels in the eyes. The "red-out" does not go away as quickly it does in the sim if you've subjected yourself to these forces repeatedly for any duration. Granted, there are highly trained aerobatic pilots that practice every day to minimize this effect but the vast majority of combat pilots avoid Negative G's like the plague. They HURT!
I'd propose a red-eye fatigue factor that gets progressively worse after a duration of high negative G forces or the repeated rapid onset of these forces. Are there any flight surgeons out there for quantitative data? Right now, there are few reasons not to porpoise like a wounded dolphin: E-retention is good and the red-out goes away.
MiG
-
Just went up in the Training Arena with an F4u-1D. I climbed inverted at 3.5k to 4k per minute with wep.. then 2k per min without. I never did manage to stall it.
I was as low as 110 ias.
I'm not claiming to be an expert on airfoils or lift... but this seems wrong to me. An inverted wing at low speeds still generating lift without really reducing climb or speed characteristics?
Explain how this is possible pyro.
Inverted, the wing is no longer a wing, but more of a massive control surface. This is a totally inefficient way of providing lift and should not be this good at climbing (especially at low speeds). It just doesn't seem right to me.
AKDejaVu
-
AKWabbit
Stop the bs, noone in this thread has "hidden agendas" - at least not the guys from the other sim.
We just cant all be like Wells (thank god :=).
To crave for the numbers, the definite and ultimative mathematical proof, every time a matter is under consideration is bound to stop development.And a good way to stop questions.
Happend to that other sim.
danish
-
That's not what I'm saying AKW. There's nothing hard about looking at what the drag differences would be, it can just be a bit unintuitive, especially if you're not familiar with the basic lift and drag calcs.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/defaultframe.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/defaultframe.html)
My offer to Daff stands.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Once again Pyro, you feel it is accurate to have an inverted F4u-1D climb at a sustained 4k/min at 130 IAS? Sustained?
at some point.. the wing and lift calculations on the wing become totally innefective. The wing is no longer generating lift as a wing... only as a plate. Then it simply becomes an issue of how much force is generated by the volume of air slamming into the top of the wing (the plate in inverted flight) forcing it up. The angle of the impact calculates into it too. If you are saying that the force needed to do this is sustainable at 130 ias with a 4k/min climb rate.. I'd really like to see YOUR numbers on that.
AKDejaVu
-
A side note to what I said above...
Inverted and normal flight in AH are nowhere near the same. The maneuvers you are capable of in normal flight (positive G) are not repeatable (at the extreme) in negative G flight. There is a difference. Anyone that says otherwise hasn't flown recently.
My question simply revolves around how accurately inverted flight is modeled.
Given certain sets of numbers, I do not know that it is possible to adequately model inverted flight. It would revolve around re-shaping algorithims in certain situations taking completely different factors into account. Basically... airfoil simulation computing type of calculations. Dunno if our systems have the processors to handle that just yet.
I will accept that its the best HTC can do right now... I just can't relly accept that its 100% accurate... but then show me the sim where it is?
AKDejaVu
-
>AKWabbit Stop the bs
Well Danish, if you don't think there are people like Spitboy, Macboy, Gadfly, etc, etc that come to this bbs with "other" agendas then you are an idiot.
These aren't the only people who question the FM. We have plenty right here. A lot of the time they turn out to be right. But a lot of it is idiots spouting off about how it doesn't "feel" right to them. Most of the time this base of their experiences in other sims like FA, AW, Aces of the Pacific and such that in no way came be used as a useful comparision here. More people around here could do worse than take a page out of Well's book.
Concerns about the FM are best expressed with well reason arguments backed up by careful testing, historical test data, or reasonable math are much more valuable to Pyro than random gut feelings. If you don't think its better to back your gut "Feelings" with some kind of rational argument, and hopefully data, then you're an idiot. Numbers can be checked and verified. Opinions are like...well you get the point. Or actually you probably still don't.
Regards,
Wab
BTW, I wasn't implying that Daft was one with a "hidden" agenda. Although he does seem to have an unnatural fixation on inverted flight. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by AKWabbit (edited 09-21-2000).]
-
Deja - it looks like you have some misconceptions about this. An airfoil operates under the same principles whether it's inverted or not. The difference betwen a cambered airfoil and a symmetrical one is that zero lift occurs at a negative AOA and max AoA and lift coefficient are lower than on the positive side.
Climb is not a factor of lift, it's a factor of power. In a steady climb, lift=weight. At the same climb speed, the lift coefficient required will be the same whether inverted or normal. More AoA will be required to achieve that lift co while inverted but that won't affect induced drag because induced drag is proportional to the square of the lift co, not the aoa.
So the induced drag won't change but there is a variation in parasite drag with AOA. However, in the climbing condition parasitic drag component can be very small compared the THP available. So even if there was a large change in the parasitic drag it doesn't necessarily produce much change in your climb rate.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
AKWabbit
U implied daff has hidden agendas.
I said bs.
danish
-
>U implied daff has hidden agendas.
>I said bs.
Ahh so thats the hair that got up your ass.
I misspoke. I wasn't talking about Daff. I was reffering more to other FM critisism in the past. Not necessarily in this thread.
I stand by my original point however that opinions are more valuable when supported by reason and evidence instead of mere conviction.
Regards,
Wab
[This message has been edited by AKWabbit (edited 09-21-2000).]
-
I am aware of how a wing works. I am also aware that transfering the lift is not just a matter of increasing AoA. It is, but there is more to consider. The wing is no longer effecient in that the top of the wing is now significantly shorter than the bottom. To change this, the AoA has to be adjusted drastically just for level flight at low speed.. not as much.. but still significantly at higher speeds.
Is it safe to say that the wing is less efficient inverted? Wouldn't a higher stall speed be a by-product? And in the process of stalling (nose going down) the initial added weight of the lift is going to make the plane nose down even more to gain speed?
I can porpuse between 400ft/min and 4k/min in a p38 inverted max climb. It still accelerates inverted at 110 ias without losing altitude.. climbing up to 130 (4k/min) and then starts decreasing climb rate again. Never does it dip below zero.
Once again, I'm not saying its way off or not modeled at all. But if you think it is correct, I'll have to disagree with you.
AKDejaVu
-
Sorry, Pyro, I dont do maths..but I do fly a plane inverted from time to time. (In the moment only a couple of times a year, but that'll change soon)...a typical asymmetrical wing usually have a stallspeed 50% higher inverted than upright. (Check the pilots notes on a Yak52, Bulldog and T-67 for starters).
Also..if wings are that effective inverted, why bother with the fancy design?
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"
-
I fly R/C aerobatic machines and I'm quite familiar with aerodynamic theory. When flying a machine with a fully symetrical airfoil the performance is almost totally unchanged, and with a well aligned/balanced plane, hands-off inverted is quite possible. It is my understanding that most fighter airfoils are semi-symetrical, some almost full symetrical. Thusly, while flying inverted the only factors affecting the performance would be the incedence of the wing and stab and the airfoil. While I agree that the performance should differ a bit, unless you have specific data pertaining to the airfoil and incidence of the wing of the plane in question, please reserve your judgements untill backed up by real data. Unless you've flown a fighter inverted, or seen test data of such, you have nothing to compare it to other than your assumptions. I would really like to see more solid data when people question the FM. Otherwise it's purely subjective.
-
With asymetrical wings, you are implying that one side of the wing is in effect longer than the other. That is how the lift is generated.
When you invert the asymetrical wing, in order to generate the lift, you need to make the top longer than the bottom. But now, you have to make the the shorter side of the wing longer. In effect, you lessen the area providing lift requiring an increase in the airflow required to generate equivilant lift.
and for you Dudedog.. we can question whatever we want. Thankyou.
If I decide to criticize however... I'd better have some numbers. I don't know where to begin solving the problem and I wouldn't have the knowledge to start talking down to HTC in regards to it. They have generated a better flight model than I ever dreamed possible. However, I will question anyone that thinks its perfect.
AKDejaVu
-
StSanta, I meant no offence, I actually agree that the FM doesn't match my "assumptions" on how WWII aircraft would fly inverted either. But then I don't know what airfoils they use, nor have I ever seen inverted flight performance data.
-
A typical airfoil, the NACA 230xx series as used on many WW2 fighters, such as P-38, F6f, F4f, F4u, Fw-190 has a negative Clmax that is about 80% of the positive Clmax. The stall speed inverted would be the inverse square root factor, or close to 12% higher. That's a 2% cambered airfoil. The zero-lift angle is about -1 degree, so it would be really difficult to tell this airfoil as being non-symmetrical by just looking at it. Going to a 4% cambered airfoil, it gets a bit worse...
The negative Clmax in the case of the NACA 4412 is 42% that of the positive and inverted stall speed would be 55% higher in that case. That is the tip airfoil on the T-6 and P-38.
The thicker the airfoil for a given camber, the more symmetrical it's behaviour, so the thick root sections on the Typhoon and F4u would be as close to symmetrical as you would get, without actually being symmetrical airfoils.
[This message has been edited by wells (edited 09-21-2000).]
-
How about figuring this out Wells..
At a constant speed.. lets say 200 IAS, how much less lift is generated? Given that figure, and the angle the plane is climbing at... you should be able to calculate added wieght to the equation.
AKDejaVu
-
I'm not sure what ur getting at Deja,
At 200, it should be possible to generate enough lift to support the weight of the plane, either upright or inverted. Induced drag is the same, as Pyro stated. Profile drag on the wing might be higher, but how much would it affect climb? Overall drag is somewhere around 1/4 of the thrust value, profile drag is about 1/2 of that, so even if profile drag doubled for inverted flight, we're only talking about maybe a 10-15% increase in overall drag and you'd still be able to get 95-97% of the climb rate.
Climb rate = (Thrust-Drag)/mass * Velocity
Do you really wanna argue over 150 fpm? I can walk faster than that...
Daff, what airfoils are used on the planes you fly? Can you find out? I think the Citabria uses a clark-y, which is 6% camber and 12% thickness, one of the worst airfoils for inverted flight. Not saying you fly one of the those, but you can't use that as something to go by...
-
When inverted... what speed is necessary to maintain level inverted flight? Minimum?
AKDejaVu
-
How long is a piece of rope?
-
When inverted... what speed is necessary to maintain level inverted
flight? Minimum?
Anywhere from 10-50% greater than upright, depending on airfoils. If the plane stalls at 100 mph upright, then anywhere from 110-150 mph inverted. I tested a few planes offline and they all seemed to be in the ballpark...I think Pyro has done his homework.
-
*THWACK*..... as the ball is sent blistering over the net and back in to the other court...
-
Anywhere from 10-50%?
Awe.. come on.. you can do better than that.
Once you do.. explain how I can maintain a 2.2k-3.0k fpm climb inverted at 100?
AKDejaVu
[This message has been edited by AKDejaVu (edited 09-22-2000).]
-
Deja... to do that you have to hold your breath and lift your feet off the rudder pedals, but it only works on Tuesdays and Thursdays during daylight hours. I don't have the exact formulae available on this, but saw it published in a flight journal somewhere... err.. maybe it was on a cocktail napkin somewhere... somebody pass me another beer and get that damn sheep on the barbeque.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Skorpyon
~900th Bloody Jaguars~
"Feel the Sting......"
-
Yes, I have a fixation with inverted flight (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (And I've been on HS's back about it a lot too)...and it's mainly because of those silly neg-G maneuvers that are now also very evident in AH.
As for some inverted maneuvers not being possible in AH, it's more to do with limited elevator travel than the wings. (At least that's my theory :P).
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"
-
hi all:
I have a problem with all the aircraft in this game. when I fly it would br nice to have a litle music, but I can'nt fit the panio in the cockpit.
------------------
wolf37
C.O.
THUNDER BIRDS
-
i was very close to say that the simplest solution is to bring back the FM of 1.03 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
maybe a second goodie would be that some of the new guys who only can be remembered because of there bad attitude will leave.
------------------
ibreh
332nd Flying Mongrels