Jump to content

HagarTheHorrible

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    1780
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

621 Excellent

About HagarTheHorrible

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Scotland the Brave, but only after a cup of tea and consulting a lawyer
  • Interests
    Beer, Wimmin, errrr ...... That's about it really. I know, I really should try to prioritize.

Recent Profile Visitors

2093 profile views
  1. HagarTheHorrible

    What, if anything, is 'energy retention'?

    This was interesing; What-does-energy-retention
  2. HagarTheHorrible

    What, if anything, is 'energy retention'?

    NOT WRITTEN BY ME; Energy retention is currently very often missinterpreted. The most blatent exemple is "Yak-3 energy retention is totally OP". Which is wrong and I'll explain why. Actually, we are talking here of energy flux. Don't be afraid, I'll explain that. Without taking into account the vertical of the plane (lift / gravity), we basically have 2 forces: thrust and drag. Thrust is your energy production, drag is your energy dissipation. Energy retention, in WT, is like I said "abused" in the way that we are actually talking about energy flux (production - dissipation). Retaining energy well implies that you have a small dissipation. Back to Yak-3: if you cut the throttle and look how fast it slows down, you'll notice that aside from A6M, nothing slows down as fast as a Yak-3. Its energy retention is poor. However, the plane has a great energy production. It can actually overcomes the poor energy retention, and even more, it is so good at producing energy (especially below 450kmh) that it is one of the best energy producer of the game. Technically, energy retention should mostly refer to the capacity of a plane to retain its speed past top speed (aka when drag > thrust, hence the plane decelerates). Otherwise, we should refer to energy balance, but that is nipticking. That is what is important to understand with "energy retention" as people say here: Heavy planes are great at zooming maneuvers, and extended maneuvers. You are heavy, you have a bad thrust/mass ratio, but you dissipates less in exchange. In a light plane, you produce a lot, you are excellent at "burst" maneuver, but extended operation at high speed is not always in your favor. When fighting a lighter plane (and if possible with a slower max speed than you), idealy you want to go past your max speed, in order to make the lighter plane bleed more energy than you. (both will bleed, but your goal is to bleed less than him) Back to your Sabre - MiG matter: Sabre engine is better at producing energy than a MiG engine, especially above 800kmh. That's why, in a turn, starting at 1000kmh, Sabre will end up with more speed and energy: even though the heavier Sabre bled speed (dissipation), the thrust (production) was enough to overcome the loss, at least to a greater extent than the MiG, On the other hand, if you start a turn at 800kmh, you will see than MiG is likely to finish the turn with more energy than the Sabre. What changed ? The energy production of both plane has switched to the favor of the MiG. A clearer exemple: Sabre Max speed is 1107kmh at S.L. MiG-15 is 1075 kmh at S.L. If both dive at the same speed, and both ended up at 1111kmh at S.L, (A) Sabre will slow down at a slower rate than MiG-15 because 1) its top speed is higher 2) its mass is heavier; (B) In a zoom climb @ 10°, Sabre will be able to zoom up high faster and longer than a MiG-15. The more vertical you go, the more you give MiG an advantage, because you go for "burst" maneuver instead of a "sustained maneuver". Sabre energy balance at high speed is "better" than MiG, and since jet are often fast, that is what makes people say that Sabre energy retention is better. Well, like I said, Sabre E-rentetion is better, but actually what people mean here is Sabre energy balance is better, since energy retention only shows past max speed, which is not that often, even in a jet fight. EDIT: and as you can see, MagZ is a happy follower of the "energy retention abuse", giving a lovely theory about E-retention during E-transformation whatsoever. Fact is E-flux is a confusing subject, and when you are let's say "clear" with what it represent, you can only laugh at people that give fancy name to suit their explanation / own understanding. They are notsaying something fundamentaly wrong, but calling a lion a cat because both are feline is not totally correct either. Edited February 8, 2016 by Rapitor How to test a plane's energy retention(?) MEC/Testing Looking for a plausible way to find an indication of two planes' energy retention when I don't feel like playing matches but want to waste time. Came up with one test method which I thought seemed reasonable: Find out a plane's top cruise speed (in TAS) at a fixed altitude, radiators closed, 100% throttle, fuel load etc. Count how many seconds it would take for the plane to decelerate to max cruise speed when it starts at 200km/h TAS above it (all whilst maintaining the fixed altitude). Repeat at every 1000m altitude. E.g. The F6F-5 and Bf109F-4's top cruise speed at 3000m with 45mins fuel are roughly the same (the F-4 is a tiny bit faster). So I get both planes to 200km/h TAS above cruise speed at 3000m, and count how many seconds until the speed reduces to their respective cruise speeds. Prelim test runs show that although the F6F-5 max cruise speed is a tiny bit slower, it takes about a full minute longer than the Bf109F-4 to return to its max cruise speed. EDIT: to me, the F6F-5 has indicated a slight lower cruise speed but better energy retention, i.e. if you pull out of a dive and fly level with a Bf109F-4 in equal pursuit, you would in theory pull away for a short time before the German plane starts slowly catching up once both planes return to max cruise speed. I thought this method was pretty good for comparison even where if you look at a completely different plane like the A6M3, you can see it has both a combination of lower max cruise speed AND a faster speed/energy bleed when starting 200km/h TAS above it. Any thoughts, suggestions for improvement, feedback, etc? All plundered from WT.
  3. HagarTheHorrible

    What, if anything, is 'energy retention'?

    This is all way too complicated. Forget the engines, they aren't a factor, there are only two things that count, lift and drag (not as in queen). Try and imagine two gliders dukeing it out. The only way, I can imagine that an aircraft can have better energy retention coming out of a turn is if it uses something like Kerrs, from F1. An aircraft with a higher wing loading will always have to expend more energy to proscribe a circle of a certain diameter than an aircraft of a lower wingloading, it is always going to have to trade more energy just to retain enough energy to keep flying. As far as I'm aware a swept wing isn't as efficent at producing lift, we know this because the 262 had a high take off and landing speed. The only thing I can think the debate might center on is that something like the 262 could possibly go around the circle faster rather than tighter, thus retaining more kinetic energy but, of course, that isn't specific to the 262 just any aircraft with a large speed difference. The problem for the 262 is that because of low acceleration, once it has lost energy it's up shits creek and we know this because this is when Allied aircraft chose to attack it, during take off and landing. YO-YO's are a good example of energy retention because it's fairly simple to see how it's possible to convert, or retain, one type of energy by storing it up as another, but again that only works if you have an excess, compared to your opponent, to start with. So, to summerize, a much faster aircraft can potentially reach the same point by flying a bigger circle, faster, than a slower, tighter turning aircraft, thus RETAINING more potential energy to trade in when the need arises. As pointed out earlier BFM is all about conserving energy and spending it as efficiently and as effectively as possible.
  4. HagarTheHorrible

    Skin 4k Pfalz DIIIa / Sopwith Camel

    Awesome skins. Not that it matters, and just for the sake of being a pedant, the chequerboard on the tail, along with the wheel covers, of McEwan's (28 Sqn) seems to be transposed black for white, white for black when compared to the profile., if indeed the profile got it right to start with.
  5. HagarTheHorrible

    What, if anything, is 'energy retention'?

    Energy retention is simply the energy retained by the aircraft once chemical energy stops being a factor. I doubt energy retention has anything to do with how well an aircraft turns, that is power to weight and wingloading
  6. HagarTheHorrible

    Dolphin vs DVII

    If RoF is anything to go by, the D VII will be a dog and the Dolphin will lose it's wings in fright, even at the mear sight of a German The D VII f on the other hand, with it's uprated engine and used and abused altitude ( i.e, any point after taking off and gaining some "altitude") boost button, is the king of the William hill.
  7. HagarTheHorrible

    Parachutes as a Loadout option

    Obviously your threshold for determining if something is idiotic is stupidly low. Equating the liberties taken with what might be considered likely, with regard to the reflector sight, are not so far removed from the liberties that BF1 takes with technological innovation, so the point stands, regardless of what you may think. Unless of course you can show evidence to suggest it was widely fitted and worked as well as suggested by RoF/FC. But then it is just a game, so it's not worth losing any sleep over .
  8. HagarTheHorrible

    Parachutes as a Loadout option

    Parachutes are greatly overrated. Unless you're playing a campaign, parachutes are a waste of time and effort. They don't save your life because, and I don't want to sound as if I'm stating the stupidly obvious, but I am, you don't actually die (well you could knock me down with a feather, surely this can't be true !!!!!!!!!). What exactly do people think they are gaining by jumping out of an aircraft with a parachute, you've still been shot down, what ever happens to you after that is pure semantics. The only difference, that I can see, would be in a campaign. I thought he he was quite right. It's a fantasy mod just like Battlefield 1 is more fantasy fun dressed up as fact. That's not to say it isn't interesting or that it existed it's just that the chances of an aircraft be fitted with one are a bit like angels coming to save the BEF at Mons !
  9. HagarTheHorrible

    Over the front Vlogs

    Collection of Vlogs by WW1 aviation enthusiasts, if it so pleases you. Over the Front
  10. HagarTheHorrible

    Parachutes as a Loadout option

    ........and a thirty-ish percent failure rate.
  11. HagarTheHorrible

    When to stop shooting?

    Just to add another piece to he pie, it could be argued that their might be different considerations for Allied and Central players. With Central players having chutes and thus the option to exit the fight at any time ( unless they introduce a 30% failure rate) it might be considered fair game to continue to attack any Central aircraft that is still in the air and under control. The victim having as much of a choice about continuing in the circumstances as the attacker, for obvious reasons not an option available to Allied pilots. That scenario would also play out somewhat in line with the situation on the Western Front, battle often taking place some distance over the German side of the lines and with unfavorable headwinds preventing a timely Allied exit thus favoring German pilot options and survival.
  12. HagarTheHorrible

    When to stop shooting?

    Quite so, but if others fly by different rules then so be it. The only things I dislike are vulching, for the sake of it if it's gaming the game and doesn't give the opposition a fair crack, they may as well just cheat and be done with it rather than hiding behind a veneer of historical gobbledygook. The only other exception is pilots in chutes, just why would you bother. Everything else is fair game, depending on mood and circumstance, everything else on the part of the victim is just sour grapes, their argument should be to just fly better and smarter that they don't get shot down in the first place, lets face it the consequences during the war were a hell of a lot worse than wounded pride or disjointed nose.
  13. HagarTheHorrible

    CHALLENGE

    I don't think we will see any early war stuff. If I remember correctly, I think Jason said it had been a bit of a false step in RoF.
  14. HagarTheHorrible

    Interesting skinning project

    What are the doobries in the wings ? Also notice the Rotherham pump is located on the undercarriage, evidently typical for all but early Camels although some pilots still preferred them where they could see them, to check if it was still working.
  15. HagarTheHorrible

    Flying Circus Multiplayer get-together on JG1 server!

    I would have liked to have seen a little more "clumping" ( official tech term). Because it's WW1 and there should be no radio comm's doesn't mean that aircraft taking off together shouldn't at least try to co-operate and fly in some sort of loose gaggle towards the opposition rather than bugger off any which way. Just a pet peeve of mine (especially when playing bombers). The Boche seemed to show a little more cooperation but that might have been impression rather than actuality.
×