FW-200 fire origin is bizzare

[Romanator21]

Oleg has shown different types of fire for different types of fuels. Compare the FW-200, to the Ju-88s, to the Ju-87.

[proton45]

Their are so many reasons why the "fire" in the screen shot can't be logically picked apart...

1) Comparing the ss to a real photo is imposable...if you know anything about light exposure and film you know that range of contrast becomes distorted when shooting into a bright light source.

2) You are picking apart one frame from from a moving/evolving image...How do you know that the one frame they chose to post isn't a low point between flare ups? And for that matter, I have seen real footage of burning aeroplanes where the intensity of the flames did not remain constant.

3) these ss are a WIP...nuff said.

[SaQSoN]

For those, who has no knowledge about WWII aircraft design, but feels himself knowledgeable enough to comment what can and what can not be in those aircraft:

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.

[Romanator21]

How can you be sure that those systems have hit-boxes in the DM? Or are you part of the development team and know something we all don't?

[Blackdog_kt]

He's absolutely right about the way it is in real aircraft. Now, as far as the simulator goes i think he's in some way connected to the dev team, if not directly a part of it.

That of course makes me real glad to hear the explanation...if the fuel controls in the cockpit have a DM, then they probably also function just like the real ones

[philip.ed]

Aye, I says. Proton has a good point there. Wiv these static screens, we can't half get the true picture.
But; can ya' see through fire in that way?

[JVM]

No I do not think so. Even in a small fire or an evolving fire, the flame is always much brighter than the background and "hides" it effectively.
Do not forget than from this brightness standpoint the (fuel related like in the Fw, presumably) Wellington flames are spot on.
On th eother hand shapes and smoke transitions are very good on the Fw...I am pretty sure tha Luthier is simply showing a lot of possibilities and they have a pretty good idea of what is right!
Generally speaking, all airborne flames are too bright to see behind; they maybe of different sizes or colors depending of what is burning, in which quantity, and what are the aircraft speed and altitude (the latter ones are very important, but probably not yet simulated in SoW, and probably not before long...).
The smoke is another matter entirely.

JV

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

Or are you part of the development team

He is indeed.

[ElAurens]

Yes indeed. When SaQSoN speaks it's time for you guys to stand down and actually listen for a change.

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.

But carry on with your dog and pony show of screen shot debauchery, it's actually fairly entertaining.

[T}{OR]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Yes indeed. When SaQSoN speaks it's time for you guys to stand down and actually listen for a change.

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.

But carry on with your dog and pony show of screen shot debauchery, it's actually fairly entertaining.

Well said.