FW-200 fire origin is bizzare

[Romanator21]

There are a lots of fuel related controls and instruments in the pilot's cockpit, such as fuel cocks, fuel tank selectors, manual fuel pumps, primer pumps, fuel pressure manometers, etc. All this devices are connected to the aircraft fuel system with numerous fuel lines, which go through wings and fuselage to the cockpit. And all those lines are modeled in the collision model in the game. Any of this lines may be damaged and become the source of fuel leak and fire.

And if you all had been paying any kind of attention to what has been written about SOW, and not just glomming on to every screen capture like a flock of crows pecking at a carcass you would know that individual systems in the aircraft will all have their own discreet damage models.

Well, my apologies for offending anyone...It was just surprising - It has been said of course that the DM would be more detailed, but I don't think it has been said explicitly to what degree.

Modeling cylinders and prop-governors is a little different that modeling a thin fuel line, and structuring flames to erupt from the exact point that the little line is hit. It seemed too good to be true, not to say that Oleg&Co aren't programming miracle workers.


Anyway, I thought I'd repost this:







It's a little old (2005) so a lot could have changed, bit it's not totally obvious from this that fuel lines are modeled. Likely, I don't fully understand what is going on in these illustrations. This was the cause of my "skepticism" of such fine detail.

However, one can see how this surpasses Il-2 in all counts. You can clearly see the spars, control lines, hinges/attachment points for control surfaces, firewalls, bulkheads, armor plates/glass, radiators, governors, engine block, supercharger, oil reservoir, guns, ammo bins, radio, battery, etc.

[Romanator21]

Such as this one:

You have to be careful when using wartime photography, or any photography for that matter. The camera captures things a little differently than the human eye, especially with regard to points of light, like flames.

[Flying Pencil]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

Anyway, I thought I'd repost this:

(cutaway images)

It's a little old (2005) so a lot could have changed, bit it's not totally obvious from this that fuel lines are modeled. Likely, I don't fully understand what is going on in these illustrations. This was the cause of my "skepticism" of such fine detail.

However, one can see how this surpasses Il-2 in all counts. You can clearly see the spars, control lines, hinges/attachment points for control surfaces, firewalls, bulkheads, armor plates/glass, radiators, governors, engine block, supercharger, oil reservoir, guns, ammo bins, radio, battery, etc.

Thanks for posting!

I have seen cutaways of other SoW aircraft, but I do not think ever the damage model.
It has an amazing amount of detail, including numerous spar structures, which likely means more fidelity on structural damage till break.

[Romanator21]

Phillip, the photo you posted of the American Airlines is a fake. Now you definitely can't use that as reference, lol.

[JVM]

Yes, but there are many others which are not fakes...like this one (of 2 P38 having had a severe brush-up) I find interesting: very limited fire speed = 0...and no transparency of flame....
You can also have a look to this too well known one:

http://photos.signonsandiego.com/080...Crash25Sep1978

This is still for me one of the most tragic images I have ever seen and I prefer not to post it here, but it does make a point fire-wise.

JV

[winny]

There are some shots of aircraft fires in this video.

Some of them are huge. All of them are pretty humbling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oav6I0DcfY&NR=1

This is very quick but still shows fire quite well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkc9ErXm83s

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

Phillip, the photo you posted of the American Airlines is a fake. Now you definitely can't use that as reference, lol.

Should I cry? It's just a demonstration. If some photoshop idiot can get it right, then why can't a group that's been working with flight-sims for years? A simple answer on how fire can possibly look like that would be great (obviously Oleg isn't entitled to answer!). I mean, obviously it might be the way the shot has been taken (or when it was taken) but I'v never seen this in all the guncam clips I've seen or even in real-life images.

I mean, if this is fuel related the flames should be fierce. Puny flames like this would surely be extinguished easily by the airflow?

[Romanator21]

Umm, thanks for editing my post? What was the point in that replacing an aircraft image with that green thing? So I look more antagonizing? Get a life.

If some photoshop idiot can get it right, then why can't a group that's been working with flight-sims for years?

How can you say he/she got it right? Just because it looks cool?

You seem to think that making flame effects is bone-headedly easy. If it is, why don't you show us some examples of your own work?

Puny flames like this would surely be extinguished easily by the airflow?

A flame (though fake) totally surrounding an engine is not puny. Flowing air can actually fan the flames and make them stronger. Dripping fuel can hit the air and "vaporize" in a trailing cloud like you see in Il-2 and ignite at any moment.

[winny]

Another (very famous) aircraft on fire.

The tragic concorde fuel tank rupture.

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

Umm, thanks for editing my post? What was the point in that replacing an aircraft image with that green thing? So I look more antagonizing? Get a life.





How can you say he/she got it right? Just because it looks cool?

You seem to think that making flame effects is bone-headedly easy. If it is, why don't you show us some examples of your own work?



A flame (though fake) totally surrounding an engine is not puny. Flowing air can actually fan the flames and make them stronger. Dripping fuel can hit the air and "vaporize" in a trailing cloud like you see in Il-2 and ignite at any moment.

I didn't edit it......i thought you were doing that to antagonize me Ask Nearmiss if you don't believe me. it was in your post when I quoted you.

Regarding flames, calm down! I am basing all my knowledge on countless amounts of guncam videos I've seen. When I have fires in my fireplace, i can't see the bricks behind the flames, yet clearly here the flames are on such a small level one can. Now, there may be more scientific reasons (such as the fact that some flames on the hottest heat burn blue and are partly see-through, ie a bunsen burner) but I don't know. I've searched for pictures that match this one, and I can't find any.
My point is that this photoshop job does look realistic; a lot more than in this screenshot.
As I said, factors can affect this (like the movement in the game that will affect the screenshot) but I don't know.
All I've been trying to say is there is not a lot of historical evidence to support the flame-effect. Various factors may make it completely plausible but it's easier to go on what you know than 'maybe's'.

EDIT-did you deliberately want me to quote you and then change the picture to make me look like a prick? You edited your post after you posted this one! So you did insert that picture...or did it just appear there?