|
|
#41
11-28-2011, 01:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Anyone.. Got Track? ®©
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. 
|
|
#42
11-28-2011, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 I'll start to develop an open source sim on my own if they'll ever do it! Anyway I've not so much experience about dogfighting with these models (mainly because I can't see them): are Spitfires still antigrav machines?
__________________
 A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria.
|
|
#43
11-28-2011, 02:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#44
11-28-2011, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Talking about a flying brick: if they will not change the FM engine we'll see again Tempest's spin and autorecover in 100m as in 1946... if they will model it, of course.
__________________
A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria. Last edited by 6S.Manu; 11-28-2011 at 02:54 PM.
|
|
#45
11-28-2011, 02:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 As about the lads above - I would keep this interesting by not assuming what THEY might do with elevator. All the information is relevant as for 1.05, we all know (and hope) that FMs are subject to change.
__________________
Bobika.
|
|
#46
11-28-2011, 03:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Are they gonna be changed towards the fake 1946 FM?. We'll find out soon. To be honest I don't think it should be so difficult agreeing to set the parameters of each plane in game according with the official performance tests of them, which were really extensive in WW2 and there is plenty documentation about them also, that's the way it should be and remain either if we like it or not, IMHO.
__________________
 Former member of:StG111 2003-2005 | SG1 2006-2009 | 15.Span 2010-2011 CPU Intel i7 920 @ 2.67 -> OC 4 Ghz MB ASUS P6T Cooler Noctua NH-D14 Memory 12GB GPU 2x nVidia 285 GTX 1GB SLI HD 2x SATAII WD VelociRaptor 150GB RAID 0 SB ASUS Xonar DS/DT 7.1 PSU Tagan 1100W OS W7 Ult.64 LCD LG W2284F-PF TrackIR 3 Pro + Saitek X-52 + Saitek Pro Rudders Pedals + Pro Flight Throttle Quadrant + Saitek PcDash 2 Last edited by KeBrAnTo; 11-28-2011 at 04:03 PM.
|
|
#47
11-28-2011, 04:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The problem with the 109's elevator is also about the flimsy data: simply there aren't real numbers about the strengh needed to manouvre. Only pilots' accounts... We all know that the 109 pilot could control the plane using both his arms since it was not a lack of efficiency of the elevators at high speed (as the simulated in 1946). Developers need to be find a way to manage this, otherwise we'll have again a porked 109. And here we go with the pilot's fatigue simulation...
__________________
A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria.
|
|
#48
11-28-2011, 05:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#49
11-28-2011, 08:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The real problem (challenge) is knowing what it should be changed to! Ask 10 people here what 'energy' means and your likely to get 10 different (and wrong) answers! Truth be told you will not be able to find much if any real world data on 'energy' values wrt WWII aircraft, not in the post war since/definition of 'energy'.. In that it wasn't until just after WWII that a real 'standard' test was defined to measure energy and the change in energy.. Up until than 'energy retention' was loosely defined as a 'zoom' test.. And those tests were done mostly in the field, read not a typical performance test done under controlled conditions In summary, until you know what the 'value' should be there should be no talk of 'changing' the current value
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
|
|
#50
11-28-2011, 08:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
