dali wrote: actualy lift is created by air being forced to flow over two different distances. since all things in nature which were disturbed in their original flow try to restore order and harmony, this is also valid for air > thus air from lower part of the wing, which has higher pressure wants to balance with air on the upper surface which has lower pressure > and so creating lift force. since the wing is not indefinite, but very finite plane, air from bellow and above do meet in one point, and this point is of course the wingtip. The drag produced is called induced drag, and there are some vortices, but their force depends on weight. In airplane of such relatively small size the vortice is so weak, that it is almost non existant.

Yep.
I know how this works. My daytime job is designing these damned things. The end result of the process you describe is air being pushed down.
Where I disagree with you is with regards to Vortice strength. Vortice strength is dependent on airspeed, wing loading (weight per area), aspect ratio (wingspan squared over wing area) and the shape of your span-wise lift distribution (preferred to be elliptical). A WW2 fighter has small and stubby wings, is relatively heavy (especially the german designs), and would pull substantial g loads. The vortex trail could be substantial.
on the other hand, a spit with no more ammo and empty tanks flying at full speed in a parabola (zero g) heading for terra firma would indeed have a "vortice is so weak, that it is almost non existent"

Flutter

PS: since Oleg and team are actually calculating the traces of single bullets, it would actually surprise me if every aircraft will NOT leave a mathematical wake containing wingtip vortices and propwash

I do read here, I just haven't posted before. I don't think you need HD footage to be able to see the effect of fire - you can see it's fire and you can see how big it is. In stock IL2 you will have a fat red 100ft of fireball coming out of the back of the aircraft and I have some small concern that this will be repeated according to the pictures i've seen so far. When you use the effects pack fires are radically different.

There's quite a few fires in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVoYVm1BlKQ

I have a lot of faith in the quality of Oleg and his team, I think it'll be a cracking product, but I want to see realistic visuals as well as the awesome flying realism they will give us. And of course I don't want porked .50cals this time, we can all see what fatal damage those APIT round do - I can't face another 7 years whining lol

very well done vid...thats the mod i use and its very very good...esp smoke, flame and tracers :)

AWESOME video Osprey!

Having been on the receiving end online of un-modded, but well-aimed .50 cals, I assure you that they have never been porked.

Perhaps the original dispersion didn't suit many, but on target they hurt ... just like the rl guncam footage we see. ( and most of the times I've had my FW190 sawn in half was from a high-speed bounce, not a several-seconds-of-firing effect. )

IMHO, the key is and always has been, the "well-aimed" aspect of firing .50 cals.

Osprey that vid is superb, and those mods are wonderful I use these to. :grin:

All of the effects mods (that I've tried) have really over-the-top explosions. The fact is that most people have only seen slow motion scale model explosions in old movies, gasoline fires and CGI fireballs. Even with gun camera footage - the published/surviving examples tend to show ammunition explosions etc. (rather than the less dramatic strafing runs).

The appearance of explosions in real life is quite a bit different from movies (or even from real explosions captured by cameras instead of the human eye).

When you people said you were going to bring us a new version of the game , I never expected any thing this detailed.

Thank you!

I appreciate your concern, but I already have a prescription.

You have to take into account that pilot helmets are not rubber swimming hats. In the first photo however, the proportions on the pilot's head are more apparent because his forehead is so exposed. The comparison is easier to make to the screenshot this way.

But let me show you what I am seeing and maybe we can come to terms in some way. Rather than compare the pilot to a random object like the plane's wheel, let's compare to the canopy frame which is much closer and thus less likely to be distorted due to FOV.

One thing to take into account is that while the canopy is fixed in place, the camera is in a different position. In one photo it looks slanted, and longer, while in the other it looks straight and shorter because it is slanting away from the viewer rather than across. So, we have to assess the vertical height of the slanted frame.

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...stephenfox.jpg

So, I've come to the conclusion that the virtual pilot is the correct size.

But maybe I just need a new pair of glasses. ;)

Sorry Romanator, but even to the naked eye the relative head sizes in the two pictures are vastly different. Your crude attempt at measurement comparison is totally flawed.
Without attempting to use measuring sticks, compare the lower panel of the sliding canopy in each picture with the head in that picture, (the angular error and FOV mismatches are then as good as eliminated), and it is obvious that the pilot's head in the lower picture is almost half the size of that in the upper.
In the BoB era most US fighter aircraft were bult with very large cockpits, the same was not the case with European and British fighters.
Perhaps you should sue your optician, lol.