Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2847 Excellent

1 Follower

About unreasonable

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2622 profile views
  1. There must be a reason (?). I suspect something to do with protecting the delicate minds of those children who might stumble into these forums. After all, raaaid's pictures are particularly scary, in a way that Pre-Raphaelite pictures are not. They give me nightmares, I hate to think what they must be doing to some poor kid with gender dysphoria. I liked the Pre-Raphaelites too, but TBH I think that these sort of themes are done much better by Arthur Rackham. Here is Freya, who you can see has not yet discovered gravity.
  2. Generally this will be with flaps up - there may be the odd exception. The 109 G-2 manual, for instance, says that to make best use of the glide ratio, extend flaps (and gear) only below 1000m - ie in preparation to land, and this is a plane with a recommended take off flap setting of 20 degrees.
  3. Not sure what you mean by "starting position". I expect it varies from plane to plane but in the Spitfire MkI manual, for instance, the best long distance glide speed is given as 100mph IAS with flaps up. Flaps give more lift at a given speed but also slow you down. Planes with an adjustable flap my have their best glide performance with some flap down, but I doubt it would ever be at the full down position. Some manuals give a best glide configuration and speed - best to check for your particular ride.
  4. 50 cal round hits to the wing absolutely cause damage to the internal structure: get enough of them and wings will fall off. Take about 40-50 hits in one test to remove the outer section of a Dora's wing at 1G - I do not know the average. You just cannot see the internal damage until the wing section actually fails. Going from the description of the DM given by the developers, you have to roll an RNG to get a "spar" hit, probability depending on the angle and so the relative aspect of wing and "spar", then enough "spar" hits in one section will cause a reduction in allowable G loading, eventually to failure. No different in the mechanism of the DM from the wings on the FC crates potentially collapsing after being hit by 303s. I agree that the weapons and ammo bays appear to be immune, and should not be. But you would still have to actually hit them and roll an RNG to see an effect. It would be quite unrealistic if every time a wing was hit by a few MG bullets the weapons or ammo was damaged.
  5. Mostly agree, except: the probability of hitting the spinning propeller is (almost) identical to that of hitting the propeller when it is stationary: so the yellow area represents a chance of a hit, equal to the area of the actual blades as shown divided by the yellow area, minus the blocking bits in both cases. It would be better to just highlight the area of the actual blades: roughly equal to the area of the black oval. Hits to the propeller disc are modelled: if you hit the propeller disc with a round with HE you can get splinter damage to nearby areas. Firing a 50 cal at the prop disc also produces the "hit debris" decal for a proportion of hits, but as far as I can see there is no resultant damage to the engine. I am not sure why there would be, necessarily. It would take a number of hits close together from 50 cals to rip off a propeller blade: I do not see this as likely. That aside I agree - the actual tail area which is the cause of so much grief is tiny, and can only be blocking a proportion of hits from a six o'clock position, if indeed it is. The question then is, if you get a lot of hits in the black oval, most of which do not actually get blocked by the vertical stabiliser, what happens? You would eventually cause a fuel leak, fire and/or PK, after you defeat the armour and self sealing, but the issue is how many hits are needed to create these effects.
  6. I think that is because the text areas can be made larger if you use a custom text size (I use 200% on a 4K TV) but the little square icons are actually embedded graphics. I agree they are absurdly small, but I do not think there is anything in them that you cannot access through the drop down text menus. At least I have been able to create fairly large missions without using the icons.
  7. On the subject of mystery deletions: I have just had a five year old Rise of Flight video, "Ich hatt'einen Kameraden", deleted from my YouTube channel after, according to them, a viewer flagged it for violating community guidelines. Forbidden content either "glorifies violence" or "incites hate", to sumarise YT's rules. The video only shows the AI pilots of my career Jasta crashing in various ways - into hangers, Entente planes, hangers, their wingmen, more hangers....with almost no shooting at all, set to a rather beautiful nineteenth century lament still used as a funeral piece in the German and Austrian armed forces. it was clearly (to me) tongue in cheek, so I found it hard to see how it violated either of these rules, but sure enough my appeal was rejected without explanation. Meanwhile there are thousands of YT videos of combat flight sims in first person PoV of players happily murdering their enemies to the sound of heavy metal... apparently these are all acceptable. Meanwhile the song is still around on YT. Bizarre.
  8. Agree to a degree: I have come to the conclusion that good craftmanship is the ability to produce a particular chosen technical effect: the art is choosing what technical effects to use to create a desired emotional or aesthetic response in the viewer. They are both a matter of degree, but arguably craft is objective while art is not. If an artist is trying to use perspective and failing this is bad craftmanship. If he is trying to create a sense of awe in the viewer there is no objective standard. Some individuals (in some cultures) might be very awed, some a little, and others not at all. You could use a statistical standard: art quality = intensity weighted average response in viewers. This would naturally not be acceptable to art elitists, who insist that there is an objectively clear standard for good art, although they are unable to express what it is. But they would say "I know it when I see it". Which is just another example of platonic idealism.
  9. Pretty is not interesting for long. It is the same in film - all the actresses who are most captivating on screen have a touch of ugly, (not too much!) Pretty girls and the depictions thereof are two a penny and instantly forgettable.
  10. Your game interpretation is fine. "Pinks" were part of Service Dress, but this name is a little misleading: they would not usually be worn in action. They were the smart uniform worn at HQ or for impressing civilians when on leave, especially the ladies, so one would not want to get them soiled with oil or whatever, especially if they had been expensively tailored. All US Army personnel, not just the USAAF, both officers and enlisted men, had a Service Dress, although "pinks" were only for officers. They also had a variety of issued combat uniforms. So for officers to be wearing "pinks" in action would be highly improbable, though not impossible. As an aside - it is an interesting phenomenon of military fashion that yesterday's fighting uniform gradually transforms into today's barracks uniform and then into ceremonial dress.
  11. Watching those full screen on a 4K TV there is a very clear difference in lighting and contrast compared to my current experience. Look forward to trying it out - hope my old 1080 can cope with this....
  12. "Wind up in a steep turn" means that the turn will naturally tend to progressively tighten up with the stick held back in the same position. Spitfires (real ones at least) do this. To prevent this, the stick has to be pulled back to initiate the turn then pushed forwards a little almost to the starting position: the plane will then turn at a constant rate.
  13. From my reading, and knowledge of that generation, I would guess that most WW2 pilots smoked, ate poorly (except our American friends), drank like fishes in the mess or in pubs to relieve the strain: but they did get regular light exercise. Although I am not sure that mess rugby was good for you. The game should really model a wheezing, undernourished young man with a hangover.
  14. If it is not clear, we have to assume that this "150kph" is the pilot's IAS. In BoX there is no instrument error - IAS=CAS, at high AoA and low speed the error is significant. Which means that every quoted manual or test figure that did not explicitly take into account this fact is an unreliable guide. That is why all stall speeds in the Tech Specs are (or seem) higher than manuals and most tests. I have yet to come across an exception in BoX FMs, except the initial release of the Tempest, where, I suspect, someone new to the job or just in a hurry worked towards the stall speeds from the Tempest manual. Which then generated the enormous CLmax. It has been changed now, but is still very high. Here is an example of a test done which did correct for this using a trailing pitot. You can see that the potential difference between a pilot's IAS and CAS can be very large at stall speeds, 20mph in this case. The F&G up stall speed in BoX generates a 1.39 CLmax for the K4. As for the difference to a conventional airfoil for the P-51: the NACA TN 1044 chart that compares the P-51 with the F6F is at high altitude - indeed the P-51 data is for higher altitudes. Another aircraft with a conventional airfoil discussed in that report is the P39N. Here the lines are much more similar at the same altitude, so it is not at all clear that taking the F6F as your model of a conventional airfoiled plane is representative .
  15. I am happy as it is but agree the ability to suddenly switching *ve and -ve many times seems a bit off. If that really worked so well in RL you have to wonder why we do not see it in descriptions of standard manoeuvres. Perhaps a graphic of vomit on the inside of the windscreen?
  • Create New...