Jump to content

unreasonable

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    6146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3039 Excellent

2 Followers

About unreasonable

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bangkok

Recent Profile Visitors

2966 profile views
  1. Are you sure what "CarriageAdditionalBulletDispertionAngle = 0.019100955, 0.03820191" actually means? 4 mils = 0.225 degrees = 0.00393 radians If it is the angle off from directly ahead, 2 mills = 0.1125 degrees = 0.00197 radians so none of these fit these numbers at all. Perhaps it is an additional % angle applied to a base number somewhere else?
  2. It was densely populated - but it was also well camouflaged on the German side, who for the most part only moved at night. They knew that exposing themselves meant immediate air or artillery attacks. I do not think allied CAS missions would have been aware of a fraction of the men and equipment below them, except perhaps during the final retreat and the failed counter attack near Mortain. Often they would attack an area marked by smoke or a particular enemy occupied village, rather than a specific enemy vehicle or emplacement. So I think that Allied CAS missions need not be too unrealistic. Actually, it would make perfect sense if the mission design sometimes just said "flatten every building in village Haut-Fromage" rather than destroy enemy units. I agree, though, that the Allied logistic build up would have been unmissable and even units in the field paid far less attention to camouflage.
  3. The main grid squares are 10km per side. You can check using the Measurement Tool in the Mission Editor.
  4. Test results for SE5a - same conditions, engine off, (one less thing to worry about), radiator shut. The test results were really very close to the RAE estimate which is at a slightly lighter weight than FC at 100% fuel and ammo. I found the SE5a much more stable in pitch at full speed than the Camel, so did not need to throw away one from each set of five tests, but hitting pause at exactly 10,000ft is still tricky! So these are means of five runs and there is still a small measurement error, maybe +/- 2 mph. The fuel state makes less of a difference purely because the SE5a carries less proportionately to it's weight. BTW in the Camel case I assumed the oil weight is unchanged in the game, although in RL it is a total loss system. Add in 10-15mph (?) for the propeller and that puts an absolute cap on the FC SE5a's speed at ~285mph IAS (edit: on a Standard Day). On the face of it 494 appears to be saying there should be no damage at this speed.
  5. Some more diving Camel results for terminal velocity ignoring break up - engine off at various weights. Conditions: 1) QMB Kuban Autumn map, 12:00hrs, weather all off. 2) Plane mods - Aldis, gauge, light, wing cut out. 3) Unbreakable and Invulnerable in realism. 4) Full ammunition 5) Fuel settings: Full, 48%,12% Plane dived five times for each fuel setting. - Start 5,000m - Engine off (E) - As close to zero Gs on HUD as possible - Feet off the rudder - Note IAS in kph when passing 3,048m There is very severe vibration and instability in pitch at these speeds, sometimes with up to +/- 2 Gs on the meter. So I took the best four out of five for the calculation of the mean result. (It would be a couple of mph slower otherwise). Comparison to modelled results: For the modelled results I took the RAF SE5a results in report 492 (in the SE5a thread) and solved for Cd*A Taking the FC spec page wing area for the SE5a as A, solved for Cd For the Camel, used the FC spec page wing area for A and assuming the same Cd as the SE5a (It would not surprise me if it was actually slightly lower in reality). Then calculated the terminal velocities for the Camel at the test weights. RESULTS Note that the Camel carries a lot of fuel - I expect the speeds players could achieve in practice would be at the lower end of the range - even when invulnerable - since your fuel state would be low either in typical MP fashion, or in SP after a long climb. In addition, these highest speeds would be completely useless in combat in the game, as the plane is so unstable: you certainly could not aim the guns. So I agree that having the Vne a little low makes little or no tactical difference unless the vibration is also much reduced.
  6. Welcome to the club, Drew! The original poster is actually complaining that the cockpit in the SPADs is hard to see out of because of the low top wing, position of the struts etc, which is all true whether you use F1 views, head tracking or VR, so it is a different. I am not sure why F1 is not taking you to the front view in the SPAD, but if pressing 4 normalises everything it does not sound too bad. Most people who play this game a lot end up using head tracking - TrackIR or the free version, Opentrack. It makes for a much better experience once you have got used to it.
  7. You can use Alt-F2 views - and move them around in game with the mouse - without Mods On but you have to have "Allow Spectators" ticked in Realism settings, so a server that enforces Expert settings will disable them. To actually modify the pov of the cameras in Alt-F2 views you have to have the file mentioned, know how to adjust it, and I think Mods On as well. At least this was enforced at one stage: not sure if they have been reinstated as I have not fiddled with these for a while.
  8. Taking fuel out makes a bit of difference, since the Camel carries a lot. ~10mph for 50% fuel at 10,000ft compared to full, using the drag equation and solving for A*Cd from the SE5a speed/weight case to get a base. But I agree the difference still looks large: so either my are tests not yet consistent or precise enough - very likely - or the game is modelling the Camel as draggier than the SE5a in some respect. Perhaps the vibration, which causes significant g volatility in the dive, giving a braking effect (?), has more impact on the lighter plane. I will do a set of tests for both planes, full fuel and empty, all engine off, to check the v at 10,000ft at some point soon.
  9. Just for comparison with the SE5a dive thread, I took a Camel, Kuban autumn map, 48% fuel, and dived from 20,000ft with the "realism" settings ticked for invulnerable and the other one (forgotten what it is called). Point is that this should give the terminal velocity of the Camel assuming the wings and engine do not break. The dive was maintained as close to zero G on the meter as I could get. At 10,000 ft the IAS was 192 with engine completely turned off, 195mph at full throttle and full rich. There could probably be a little improvement with maximum revs for the altitude. Conclusion - terminal velocity of a Camel much lower than an SE5a, perhaps 190-200mph range. Makes sense qualitatively - it is quite a bit lighter but not much smaller, at least in frontal area. Making the plane/engine more robust might be correct, but would in this case make not so much difference to the dive performance, since the limiting terminal velocity is low.
  10. Many of us spent most of our lives to date in the last century and found it quite agreeable. Considerably better than this one, all things considered. "Travel and adventure" is of course the appeal of the armed services: "Travel to new places, meet interesting people: and kill them" as the recruiting sergeants say. Then tell tall stories about it all, in this case....great airman, all the same. Now for something completely different... This is a very well written summary of the history of the earth, how and why it matters to us, at just about the right level of generality for me. Not too technical, but assumes the reader is capable of understanding some science. Anyone interested in geology, plate tectonics, how coal and iron deposits originated, the feedback between life and climate - which is nothing new - will enjoy this book. Really good popular science writing.
  11. I am not sure either. He may have been confused by Livai's posts, (easily done), although Livai's only said that drag reduces with higher speed, not that the bullet accelerates (I think English not being his first language ). Which is only true at the wake phase transition, not relevant to bullets.
  12. Pretty much like the majority of WW2 fighter pilots after a fur-ball had developed then? I am fairly sure that real pilot kills followed a power law of some kind - e.g. 80% of victories were by 20% of the pilots, and even in that group, 80/20 applied. The AI do score on occasion, but it is true that they cannot get 5-6 kills in a mission like an experienced human player. (I was always happy with a batting average of one). They would get more if the human players did not hog the action. I am not saying the AI is perfect - obviously not - but for me what they do in action is the least of the problems. It is things like the sudden 90 degree direction changes in formation, becoming blind to imminent threats after being told to RTB and the endless circling for landing clearance that drive me up the wall.
  13. The graph I think you are referring to on the left in section 3 clearly shows the air resistance for the smooth ball rising at speeds over about 90 kph. The phenomenon of the sudden decrease in drag on a soccer ball is described - in English - here: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/socdrag.html In short, there is a phase transition in the wake formation, which initially reduces drag. It happens much earlier on a rough ball. In either case, once it is completed the drag will then continue to increase with higher speed. Note that this ppt actually has the drag equation in it: section 4. This phase transition is not relevant for supersonic bullets.
  14. The work around if you are the flight commander is to order them to attack enemy air , then pick off enemies the AI is not attacking. If they are attacking an enemy, get out of the way. I do not think that it is "bad programming" exactly: solving moving 3D problems is hard to do even for firer and target, add in taking account of third bodies and it is going to get amazingly complex. The only simple way I can think of doing it would require the player to "lock on" to a target: once locked on, the AI would be prohibited from targeting the same plane. But I am not sure how that could be done in an immersive manner in a WW1-2 sim.
×
×
  • Create New...