Jump to content

Kataphrakt

Members
  • Content Count

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Excellent

About Kataphrakt

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Glad someone can understand it here, i have yet to learn it for CW use...
  2. Great video, i find it almost hard to believe the engineers were okay with that little holding the wings on for a combat aircraft. While losing 1/4th of a wing root's total strength may not be catastrophic for many aircraft, in this case losing one of the bottom 2 hinges easily could. At that point the remaining three hinges are sharing the shear while the top two hinges bear the compressive load (should still be within their design load if there's a reasonable factor of safety and G-limit is not exceeded). The one bottom hinge is now bearing all of the tensile load from the wing, and i'm not sure if that would have been designed with a >2.0 factor of safety. If that last bottom hinge fails the wing is probably just going to fold up. Another issue that likely compounds the DM issues is that the devs are generally working with the best available information from the time. So a manual, or technical sheet might say that the P-47 is rated to survive 11Gs, but we dont know how much factor of safety was put on those numbers nor do we know what drove that limit. For all we know the aircraft might have had something like a 1.2 factor of safety making it good to operate up to 13.2Gs, but only stated as 11 to cover some asses/leave room in case things got heavier later. It could also very-well be that the factor of safety on those hinges is something absurd like 3, but unless we can find something saying that in the records it means nothing since it's speculation. Without records the only real option would be to get drawings of those parts and figure out what the max stress before failure should be on those parts comparing it to the wingload under max G scenarios. This latter one is fairly easy if you A) have a mechanical engineer handy and B) have access to the drawings. Unfortunately point B is often difficult to come across.
  3. In SP i dont think people would have much of a problem if the AI feared for its life ever. Seems the only option is to tangle with the AI until their out of ammo or wingoff. Otherwise shooting an aircraft until it leaks and engaging another target just means that you'll get shot to shit by it in a minute.
  4. I've been running into this too, and the friendly forces dont properly stagger their coverage time so i'll get 3-4 squadrons flying cover for a group at once, then all bug off just as the enemy attackers approach.
  5. Thankfully not. If the metal quality on the P-51 was like that of the Panzers it'd crack and fall apart after a single hit.
  6. Fair point, we'll see how many charts it takes before a coworker asks about them 😁
  7. if we get PTO then i'll have to add *yet another* aircraft ID chart to my cube at work...
  8. I would like to see the AI adjusted to not pursue enemies a certain distance past the frontlines. It makes no sense why pilots would chase a damaged enemy fighter at such risk to themselves. I also wish the AI was a little bit smarter about when it tries to make certain maneuvers. IE if the AI is not good enough to follow players at tree-top levels, then it would be nice to have it make a decision to follow higher up.
  9. There's nothing to factor in, that "torque" you're talking about is a bending moment with the spar in a wing being a cantilever beam with a distributed load. At the base you have the maximum shear force and maximum moment reaction; however, neither of those means much when the cross-section of the beam is not constant. If the cross-section area is thick enough the stress will remain constant through the section. This is what you'd design for. Now lets say you punch a 20mm hole in our spar at a point where it is half the size of the original cross-section. you've punched a significant portion of material out of that. If we then do the same for the base we've punched significantly less material out relative to the previous section. This means a lower reduction in the spar's strength as the section gets thicker. this is because what matters is the stress on the spar, and stress is dependent on the area. And none of this is even getting into the area moment of inertia of the cross-section which increases as the cross-section area increases and as the vertical height of the spar increases. The spar is under the most load at the base; however, the load is irrelevant since the cause of a failure is the stress and strain. If the base of the spar were the weakest point relative to the entire design, then the rest of the spar would taper even more, or the base would become thicker until it balances this out. Which is what we see exactly in most sound aircraft designs. The DM doesnt really need to simulate the varying strength of the spars along the wing if an aircraft design has a properly designed wing spar. Each point along the spar should be seeing roughly the same stress at any point in time if the load on the wing is evenly distributed across the surface of said wing. Instead all that would need to be done is break the spar into hitbox sections with roughly the same HP and make it so that as the HP decreases the load able to be taken by that section decreases (and exceeding that would cause it to break). One can then account for slight increase of bullet resistance the spar gets as it grows larger by providing the closer-in spars with more HP, or some ability to resist damage.
  10. Except it neglects that the spar is also *significantly thicker* the closer you get to the fuselage. The spar is not a constant-thickness section for aircraft -- that would be a wasteful and terrible design. A properly designed spar has roughly the same stress along the entire structure. Damage sustained at any point would have the same effect (arguably lesser near the fuselage since a single round will reduce the strength by a lower percentage than it would near the tip).
  11. I dont know a ton about it in-game, but i know users in another thread were talking about how the P-51D should have its hydraulic system purged when the engine was off. It's mentioned that you can do a similar effect by just actuating the flaps up and down until the pressure is lost resulting in full loss of hydraulic pressure. That aircraft also had landing gear which was raised by hydraulics IIRC, and you could still release it and have it drop i think.
  12. We have an extensive set of objective testing which was performed and compared to real-life testing, then repeated yielding similar results vs subjective "testing." So yes his testing is better than anything else we have at the moment until something new surfaces. One might expect slight variance between in-game testing and IRL testing from the projectile differences; however, the US guns had a higher projectile energy than the german 37mm (191kJ vs 189kJ), with the german guns having a slightly heavier projectile mass (0.64kg vs 0.61 kg). The only thing we dont have to look at between these at the moment is the amount of explosive filler in each, and the relative energy content for those fillers.
  13. In an engineering sense we would call something a "composite" if it is a material made out of multiple materials bonded together. So IE gluing a sheet of wood to a sheet of metal across the whole surface would make it a composite. This is also extended to cases where you might use multiple types of steel, or multiple types of wood. Generally it's used for materials of different strengths/properties. Lamination means that it's just layered, but can be similar or different materials. It'd be more like saying pointing to a Toyota with a fiberglass bumper and saying "it's composite construction" while true in the traditional and literal sense, it's generally not really that correct since the goal of using both the fiberglass and resin isnt to get two vastly different material properties, it's really to just make a laminate material.
  14. Seems i'm miss-remembering this. I remember reading an article about some WWII aircraft which used wood laminate skin with concrete between for armor. Perhaps that was a reference to the Aerolite adhesive, or maybe i'm remembering a different craft.
  15. As with just about anyone else, i would like to see improvements to the game. The devs have already been improving the game in ways that I think is acceptable -- When they release new content they also add new or improved systems which apply to all the "games" (in quotes since it's content rolled into one actual program). This is similar to how the developers of ArmA 3 performed some of their improvements. When ArmA 3 had its Marksman DLC new core systems got added like weapon resting, and improved ballistics, anyone who had the game with or without the DLC got these updates. The same was done with other DLCs which really brought the base game up a few notches. Now if we're all going to talk about what we'd like to see, i would personally like to see a dynamic campaign setup similar to how Falcon BMS does theirs. Every mission you run has an impact on the overall battle which unfolds. Destroying a specific bridge might hinder an enemy's supply lines; however, your own troops might find trouble when they come to cross it. Mostly i want to feel like my squadron's performance is having an impact on the war. This might be unrealistic to let a single squadron determine the course of the campaign, but i feel that the current campaign has a lot of immersion issues too. If I crash my aircraft every sortie with no results no one gets angry at me, there seems to be a scheduled resupply of infinite aircraft to replace anything i break. Prop strikes on landings doesnt seem to put my aircraft out of commission while its repaired, the ground crew always has it ready for the next sortie, even if it's one that day. I think this suggestion would be a hefty amount of work to put into the game for the dev's standards. Perhaps I should post this in suggestions mentioning that i'd pay for a dynamic campaign add-on. 🤑
×
×
  • Create New...