|
|
#141
06-02-2013, 08:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
There is a school of thought in the flight sim community that if it is harder, it must be more realistic; they also seem to think that newer, heavier and faster must also mean more complicated because that would mean harder to control (and therefore, more realistic). But the reality is that as technology becomes more advanced, it always becomes simpler and easier to use. Compare your DVD or DVR to the VHS systems I was using (at great expense, I might add) in the 1980s. The DVD/DVR is smaller, lighter, more energy efficient and much, much easier for you to operate. While Anderson's book is very well written and generally accurate, that one sentence does not make the thousands of paragraphs and sentences written on the subject of trimming the Mustang before and since invalid, and most of the material on the subject says that the Mustang (like most later designs of that era) was better than its predecessors and most of its contemporaries because it was easier to fly and keep under control than the other fighters of its day, not just because it was merely faster and had longer range. cheers horseback 
|
|
#142
06-03-2013, 02:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Also keep in mind, that almost all aircraft have been made strange by this particular perception of reality. This is not new to the sim, but it is nice when someone take the whole picture, and not just a biased one. Still, all these discusions on aircraft performance, being it differential or not, start again every time a new patch appears, maybe with different actors, but it nevertheless starts again. Tagert got a good tool to analyze this, while he still used that name. It enabled him to process other peoples tracks. With some help you could achieve many more test conditions, and got some in game behaviours faster, with the addition of joy inputs to discard player wrong inputs. The trim retard was introduced because of some complain of cheating by people that love to play in horizontal furballs on dogfight servers. Nothing to do with reality.
|
|
#143
06-03-2013, 06:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The Ability to Turn Stuff OFF If You Don't Like It. If you don't like seeing some message (or all messages) described on the HUD, or if you're a server admin who thinks that they're unrealistic or favor one side unfairly, you just create an option in the GUI or conf.ini that allows you to turn them off. It's a simple solution, it makes everyone happy, and it can't be that hard to code.
|
|
#144
06-03-2013, 08:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#145
06-13-2013, 07:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here is the final (and complete) set of charts for 10,000 ft/3000m.
I’ve re-organized and re-formatted the charts, so that the basic data is below the chart. Remember that the longer and flatter the curve, the faster the acceleration. A few things to remember; weight vs power should govern the curve at the lower speed range and as speed increases, the effect of drag increases exponentially and eventually becomes the primary limiting factor. A heavy aircraft may not accumulate speed as quickly, but I expect that once achieved, it should not shed it quickly and that the greater weight will add momentum in the higher ranges so that minor changes in level flight will have somewhat less effect, and even less effect if the flat plate drag is low. I have the (general) US fighter drag and weight to power data from America’s Hundred Thousand, but I haven’t found the data for the Spitfire or other aircraft, and I would love to get that. Those desiring specific comparisons may PM me and I’ll be glad to make a chart or send you the data. I’m taking this program to the main forums; I’ve started doing the sea-level (100m) testing, and plan to take series at 5,000 ft/1525m, 15,000/4600 and 25,000/7600 to satisfy my own curiosity and hopefully encourage some debate about not only the raw speed data, but how the depictions of the cockpit instruments and the trim model affect how you fly issues. cheers horseback
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
