Jump to content

Dave

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dave

  1. To say the skybox and contrast changes are an improvement would be a criminal understatement. My bloodshot eyes are desperately looking forward to 3.001.
  2. Hmmm. Really? This doesn't gel with my experience of the P40 in game - and I fly it almost all the time. On the P40 you would need quite a bit of nose down trim to keep the nose from lifting at 466mph (Vne for the P40 is 475mph IIRC). But then pulling out of a vertical dive at this speed with full nose down trim should be impossible. I've never been able to do it without trimming out. For this reason I never trim into a dive in the P40. You want it to self recover. Granted my experiences of these pull outs has not been at such a high altitude that I can just wait for it to slowly recover.
  3. An A340 would have a similar problem if you attempted to dive it from altitude, disable the hydraulic tailplane actuators (so you are relying on the mechanical backup system) and attempt to pull out near Vne near the ground. Modern airliners use the THS for efficiency in cruise with varying weight-and-balance conditions due to varying take-off load distributions and fuel burn in flight. Their motivations have almost nothing in common with those of Messerschmitt in his design for the 109. Honestly some people's projections of Willy Messerschmitt's design prescience border on pure fantasy.
  4. You'd have to ask the devs for a specific answer regarding their reasoning for implementation choices. But for one thing, the mechanics of pitch trim in the 109 are very different from those of all Russian aircraft. Russian aircraft use trim tabs on the primary control surfaces. Trim tabs have very low forces opposing their operation. It is the reason for their design. The 109 does not use trim tabs, instead featuring a variable incidence tailplane. The latter is meant to be more efficient, producing less form drag because the elevators are not deflected as far into the airstream (I admit I have never calculated the relative efficiencies and forces involved - its on my todo list). Regarding your specific problem of "i can not understand why i stop *pushing the *button and the *wheel is still turning like 1 or 2 positions more" this would be a consequence of mapping discrete input events (button repeat) to a continuous input (axis). The same thing happens on Russian aircraft but is less noticeable due to the speed of actuation. Whilst ever you keep holding a key or button to which you have mapped stabiliser adjustment the target value for the adjustment keeps increasing (or decreasing). Simultaneously the actual position of the stab is catching up to this target with some amount of delay to account for the mechanical limitations of the control. At the time you cease pushing the button the wheel still hasn't caught up to the target value accumulated for the pitch trim change, so the wheel keeps turning. I understand your issue and I think it would probably be better to implement this particular control, when using discrete input such as buttons, as "when I stop holding the button stop turning the wheel", but that would create a problem for people who map this input to an axis. An axis is an absolute input device. If I understand correctly, and here I am making educated guesses of the implementation base upon observed behaviour, the 109 pitch trim input first converts discrete inputs to absolute values so they can be processed by the same code path that handles axis inputs. This would explain the delay you observe.
  5. Thanks Fenris. I already fly with friends on Official TS.
  6. I take 6 guns when I'm planning an air-to-air sortie - 4 guns when primarily strafing ground targets. It has been a while since I last used it all but IIRC one nice thing with the 6 guns is that 2 run out of ammo before the other 4 providing you with a bit of warning before you are Winchester.
  7. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant. Geramos asked why there was a delay. I explained why by stating the facts of the matter. I can't see where there is any room for disagreement. Its like saying you disagree that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.
  8. Substantially longer firing time for only 33% lower weight of fire and slightly improved roll rate.
  9. Damn - its going to be hard shooting you guys in your chutes now.
  10. Something to consider is the effect of the 109's variable incidence tailplane. It takes a while to move from neutral to full up and back again. What this means is that on turn entry you have a clear advantage if close to corner speed. But as his tailplane catches up to his trim input the 109 will haul its nose around quicker than you with less energy loss (oddly despite its much higher wing loading). But I've seen some excellent examples of using this now full-up trim against the 109 driver. If you are going quick enough and have altitude roll inverted and pull, then repeat. Alternatively push the nose down - he won't be able to and will slowly roll inverted to follow - right about when you are pulling up again. During all this his higher energy retention may carry him forward of your wing line where you can chew him up with 6 x .50. Stay fast - ie above 300mph if possible and definitely above 200. If you are slow the 109 should still turn worse than you but his slats (that always seem to deploy evenly) take away your advantage here. Double bad if the 109 is an E7. IN your P40 (and anything else for that matter) don't stay underneath a 109 in some futile effort to climb up to him. Gain lateral separation for two reasons: - to attack you he will need to convert some of that energy laterally where it can't be retained as well as vertically; and - it gives you turning room - even a head on pass is better for you than him
  11. The best part about a melee is it keeps them distracted while you extend and build energy to return with altitude. Don't be in one if you can help it - especially in a P40 . We need to turn just enough to defeat a firing solution. Any less is dead and any more is wasted precious E. The issue is that online lag makes this really hard to judge.
  12. While not exactly, this is close to the definition of corner speed. It is the speed at which the aircraft can pull maximum sustained G as permitted by the airframe. I personally could sustain about 6G before blacking out. That was with a G suit and a lot of effort. I never flirted with GLOC without a G suit so I don't really know what my limit would be in that situation - but I regularly pulled 4G without a G suit doing aerobatics in a couple of planes I flew. In the PC-9 you would pull 4G at the start of a loop at 250kts. Thats about 460km/h. The plane did it easily and it was certainly possible to snatch it and exceed 4G at that airspeed. Max for that aircraft was about 320kts (570km/h) and I occasionally flew it at 300. The controls were noticeably stiffer at only 50kts above loop entry speed. I can't really see anyone pulling black out G (about 6G for a fit veteran fighter pilot with no G suit) at 375kts (695km/h) in a plane that was designed to be most manoeuvrable at half that speed.
  13. This is because the variable incidence tailplane has been implemented, as demanded by die hard 109 fans I might add, as an absolute position mapping for an axis. So they can set and forget instantly. The game then has to more slowly catch up with the input to correctly account for the real speed of actuation of the tailplane trim wheel. When what is designed for an axis is then mapped to two keys instead, the input absolute position is the sum of all the key press events up until the actuation catches up with the input. The trim isn't so broken - it is the best the devs could do to make the stabiliser actuation speed more realistic while trying to support both axis and keybinding for human interface devices lacking any form of force feedback.
  14. Well ......... actually the vast majority (circa > 90%) of all victories in WW2 were scored by the victor shooting a completely unaware victim from dead astern straight and level. I have read countless recollections and seen many interviews on film of WW2 aces from several nations and every last one of them without exception said that the vast majority of their victories were surprise attacks on an opponent, usually flying straight and level, who likely never saw them coming. A tiny few involved much in the way of BFM, and an almost statistically insignificant number involved flying to the edge of their planes envelope. The standout criterion among all WW2 pilots I have listened to talk about their experiences in becoming an ace was dumb luck - in not having been killed within the first week while their SA was close to zero. The condor legion had the great advantage of getting up to speed in a relatively benign environment where they enjoyed outrageous technical superiority. The RAF and USAAF - not so much.
  15. I save 3000 RPM for when I need it to drive the supercharger fast enough to maintain manifold pressure above critical altitude. On the topic of the CSU lag I had a chat with a guy locally who maintains a Mustang and has years of experience working on Spits, Hurricanes, P40s, P51s and numerous other types. His opinion was that the lag I described on the BoX Allison was overdone. In his experience the CSU adjusts so fast he would not expect to ever see more than 100RPM variation from the set value. We didn't have a P40 on hand to test though. An old school friend of mine does own a 1710-39 though. I will ask him when I next get a chance. Your approach sounds pretty sound to me. Add in a wingman and you'll be dangerous in the P40. The Kittyhawk's main weakness is its underwhelming thrust-to-weight ratio, so having a wingman flying combat spread will save you those energy depleting turns to clear your six every 20 or so seconds. I have actually had quite a bit of success BnZing 109s as long as I start with a substantial altitude advantage and zoom as efficiently as I can - avoiding the temptation to start turning with him. While the P40 should outturn a 109 most of the time - it is costly and the 109 rebuilds that lost energy much faster. So I treat the P40 as a BnZ machine and save the turn performance for later. It's also kinda satisfying giving them some of their own medicine in a machine that isn't really made for it. The P40's aces in the hole are being able to dive like a rock and fill the convergence zone with a large mass of .50. But as you seem to have discovered getting it all to hit something isn't as straightforward as some other types. Setting convergence correctly is more critical for guns mounted well out on the wings like the P40 armament. For the P40 I tend these days to set it at 200m and fly right up their arses before firing. At this convergence you usually have all 6 guns connecting with the same small are of the target for good effect. While the M2 shoots pretty flat, a 200m horizontal convergence unfortunately also makes high deflection shots likely to be blind if you shoot while pulling. So try not to shoot while pulling G. If the game was a little more realistic in this regard you wouldn't want to do that anyway because your guns would tend to jam easily. If you fly in the future (ie predict where your target is likely to be) and unload before firing nice and close the P40 will tear him a new one. EDIT: I forgot to mention a couple of things. 1. That 109 you were able to outturn sustained was probably not an E7. Be wary of turn fighting an Emil even in the P40. They seem to outperform the F4 and G2 in this respect. 2. You may find it interesting to know that the Polish pilots of 303 SQN set their convergence to 100 yards (less in some cases), well inside the 250 yards used by most RAF Spitfire pilots. They were the highest scoring unit of the RAF. They fired at really close range.
  16. Yeah. Have you ever watched a formula thriller, screaming at the screen "No not that way ... no nooooooo!"?
  17. This made me LOL so hard I woke my wife in the next room.
  18. Nice ride. But man ... that wing-line overshoot (which you really could see coming for a while) followed by an action replay of the same mistake only seconds later OK - I'm being an ass.
  19. I have to agree with this. Not only is the view through CV1 reminiscent of an old-school scuba mask, even the 110 degrees you have is not wholly usable. The optics are optimised to improve clarity in the central region of the view and the peripheries are quite blurry. Sure, in reality only the fovea is clear anyway but when your eyes move the foveal region moves too - not so with VR. It is certainly good enough to use right now but I am really looking forward to next-gen HMDs that address these issues. The current limitations negate some of the visibility edge aircraft like the Spit, Yak1b and P40 have over the 109 - but then so does TrackIR. If you ever get the chance to sit in a 109 just try and check 6. Spoiler - you can't - or at least couldn't reasonably in a dogfight. So part of the price for the 109's performance is never really paid by virtual pilots.
  20. Since adopting VR myself I can't wait for the day that everyone flies in VR and the owls disappear. I find checking 6 in VR to be harder than in reality. This is because in reality I would grab the handrail to help twist around. Can't do this in VR and the tether keeps getting caught on the back of my chair. I'm sure I can resolve these issues but that is how it is for me at the moment. Lone wolfing has never been more unappealing for me than since moving to VR due to this and to difficulty in spotting and identifying contacts before I am already too close to disengage. But I won't be going back to my monitors. I prefer to fly as part of an element or flight anyway. If only more people in my timezone felt the same. While we are discussing realism, VR and voluntarily trading advantage for immersion - I wish servers could and would disable zoom.
  21. It isn't the only aircraft to suffer this, but the engine modelling hasn't received its makeover yet.
  22. Using RPM higher than 2600 doesn't appear to improve performance measurably. What it does do however is prevent engine damage when you throttle up. You should always increase RPM before throttle and reduce throttle before RPM. I did some very rough trials of time to climb to 10000' at 2600 and 3000 RPM while maintaining 39" of manifold in each case throughout the climb. Higher RPM did not improve the climb performance at all in my very rough test so I don't bother using higher RPM for climb any more. I have also had a couple of accidents when setting 3000 RPM before entering a fight. The idea was to unload the engine so I could be more free with manifold pressure changes but it also puts the engine dangerously close to overspeed condition. The CSU as modelled in the game lags quite a bit (several hundred RPM in the extreme) so entering even a short shallow dive at 3000 RPM runs a high risk of overspeeding the engine which leads to almost instant destruction in the game. So if you use an RPM above 2600 to improve engine flexibility 2800 might be a safer choice than 3000.
  23. P40 can turn with a Spit ... once then you are out of energy. This is pretty laughable. You need to try flying it I think.
  24. The P40 has internal capacity for long range ferry. It only needs about 33% of this to have the same endurance as a 109.
×
×
  • Create New...