Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Helyi

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. How did you get Opentrack to work? I used to have FreeTrack/Opentrack working some time ago but cannot get it to do so anymore. (OldTrackIR = 1) in config etc. [edit] Nevermind, it seems you do not need the old "OldTrackIR = 1" line anymore and in fact stops opentrack from working.
  2. Good stuff there reve_etrange it gives a reasonable approximation of what to expect to see. If you were to add a continual force adding to the system less than the force of the drag to the system you'd expect to see the two curves re-converge together at a lower speed after Vmax. Difficult to get an accurate test in game though.
  3. I had assumed you meant correctly and/or its a language conversion issue for yourself. However it's just when you have other people reading a discussion and may even learn something from our workings, I feel it important to keep it specific and accurate I probably should have said something along the lines of "just to clarify" and then the remainder. However I nor anyone else can purport to having 100% perfect communication 100% of the time.
  4. Mass has zero effect on drag, only inertia, which has a direct correlation to acceleration because it is by the very definition the resistance to acceleration and thus deceleration. Drag remains a constant for two objects of identical size/shape/material etc. but of differing mass. This is demonstrable by a mass in a vacuum affected only by gravity that I posted two posts ago... v^2 = U^2 + 2a x d Aerodynamic stability (tumbling for example with a bullet) and Aerodynamic profile (the shape/surface area/material etc) affects drag. Climbing is only part of the zoom climb towards the end (and its still an unsustainable climb but engine input [external continuous applied force, is significant]), the point where this becomes significant the heavier plane should actually be ahead and the lighter playing 'catch up' (and then consequently surpassing it). As I said, the only way I can test that is by utilising time to x altitude as a function of that separation. In which there appears to be little to no difference. In fact the numbers do suggest it is working correctly. I am just not convinced they differences we are seeing are quite true to what you would/should see in real life. It could also be that >650kph needs to be used to get clearer numbers. Using the same videos for consistency purposes I decided to check the deceleration times. From ~650kph as soon as speed starts to decay. Every 50kph drop results in these times: (We are still above maximum speed [Vmax] here so the engine should be doing nothing to assist arresting deceleration...) --------------------- 100% fuel 650 --> 600kph = 5 seconds 10% fuel 650 --> 600kph = 6 seconds (???? ill give this a benefit of some flight path error perhaps but the following number says no) -------------------------- (We are still above maximum speed [Vmax] here so the engine should be doing nothing to assist arresting deceleration...) 100% fuel 600 --> 550kph = 3 seconds 10% fuel 600 --> 550kph = 3 seconds. ------------------------- (We have approached and gone through Vmax, the engine is starting to slowly add to the system but it would insignificant at this point, from here on out there should be a growing inversely proportional relationship between the two planes deceleration per second... i.e. the lighter plane slowly begins to decelerate slower than the the heavier plane which should begin to slow down much more rapidly, it would be non-linear in nature) 100% fuel 550 --> 500kph = 2 seconds 10% fuel 550 --> 500kph = 2 seconds ------------------------- 100% fuel 500 --> 450kph = 2 seconds 10% fuel 500 --> 450kph = 2 seconds ------------------------ 100% fuel 450 --> 400kph = 2 seconds 10% fuel 450 --> 400kph = 3 seconds (Critical point somewhere between 400-500kph where less drag and increase effectiveness of engine force in power:weight terms becomes the domineering force on the system) ------------------------ 100% fuel 400 --> 350 = 2 seconds 10% fuel 400 --> 350 = 3 seconds ------------------------ 100% fuel 350 --> 300kph = 2 seconds 10% fuel 350 --> 300kph = 3 seconds ------------------------ So is this correct? Yes and no. This is exactly what should happen (a speed that is *below* Vmax becomes the critical turning point where air resistence and the benefit of mass succumbs to the benefit of engine power to lower mass [we can demonstrate that using f=ma and f is a constant extra force applied to the system from the engine so knowing f + m you can easily see how acceleration (rather its still deceleration) is affected by the extra mass as 'f' becomes closer to the total kinetic energy (i.e. velocity) of our "system".)... However the deceleration still seems to be too high for the heavier plane exactly where it should be performing better. Those numbers of deceleration times actually shows exactly why I said earlier [with minor reclarification]: I would expect to see the lighter plane achieve a higher altitude due to the efficiency of the engine adding to the system being significantly higher secondary to thrust:weight (With the heavier plane being ahead up until the critical point then being caught up to and then overtaken by the lighter plane). With the engines off I would expect to see the heavier plane achieve a higher altitude and achieve that maximum altitude before the lighter plane. But that's not what we I'm seeing (which is what I have been saying, that momentum does not appear to properly modelled). What we are seeing is the heavier plane decaying its speed at the same rate as the lighter plane above Vmax and above the critical point (not correct) where the critical point is where the continuous applied force from the engine becomes significant for the reduced drag AND reduced gravity (which we should see, correctly).
  5. I think Alkyan I may have taken that from: "Fe > Fr all the time because Fr gets smaller as the speed reduces." Which is true whenever the object is below or at a net equilibrium of forces (either below maximum speed or at it), I don't believe the critical point is precisely at the planes maximum speed for the changeover from net benefit of inertia resisting deceleration to the benefit of gaining acceleration [or less deceleration in this case] from the engine... There is a point there and its at that point I'd expect to see a shift in separation of the two planes. Since I can't fly two planes at once I was looking at separation as a function of "time" for the test (and I'd have anticipated a greater disparity between the two if things were seeming right). ​I am genuinely curious on the subject. I'm not trying to criticize anyone or the devs (except the rudder sensitivity/curves really need fixing, requiring third-party programs to manipulate sensitivities to something manageable is a bad necessity
  6. Alkayans formula is literally just f=ma. Only he extrapolated out forces (Input from motor and drag) which I ignored since they are for all intents and purposes controlled variables/constants in the example. And he was actually incorrect in saying that engine power is always greater than air resistance [it is in straight and level flight, engine power = drag at maximum speed when no more acceleration occurs], it is not however the case due to square-cube law and its exactly when we enter engine power < (less than) air resistance (when we utilise gravity to add to our energy system to overcome maximum speed) that things seem a little.... screwy... In an unloaded zoom climb you are also looking at engine power being less than the combination of air resistance and gravity (where wings are not generating lift to add to the energy system - this is why inertial formulas are completely relevant to the problem at hand). I've tried at 90 degrees and straight and level I'm not seeing much difference to my initial test. It could be pilot error as such but I'm trying to keep the maneuvres of diving/levelling/rating the nose as clean as and consistent as possible and also flying with minimal slip induced drag. Let me put it another way, when the wings aren't doing anything the plane is for all intents and purposes a funny-looking bowling ball moving upwards with a certain value of kinetic energy or velocity. With the engine on it continues to have a force exerted on it (that is still less than the sum of the forces acting against it.... since our planes do not have a thrust:weight ratio > 1 ) . So at some point as air resistance drops (due to velocity decreasing) engine capability to provide continuous force to continue the current plane of motion becomes more important than the planes ability to resist the forces trying to decelerate it As for converting energy it should still follows the simple laws of physics. Looking at v^2 = (u^2 + 2a)d and ignoring air resistance you end up with two planes that should end up at identical heights irrespective of mass, this is no different than looking at throwing two objects up into the air with the same initial velocity in a vacuum, actually thats exactly what the formula is Of course we do have air resistance so therefore its not quite so cut and dry but for the two objects up in the air principle the heavier object of course will go higher than the lighter one assuming identical aerodynamic profiles and stability (one isn't tumbling compared to the other etc.) It also means that from the moment those objects "leave" the reference frame (lets say its your hand throwing them) then the lighter object immediately begins decelerating faster. Thus if you pause time at any given point the heavier object should be higher and faster than the lighter object. Now if you add in another force continuously acting on the object (lets say its the engine) then it becomes another matter and actually becomes more complicated than it first seems. However as I said earlier that's where there is a critical point where the extra force being adding to the system from the engine is providing more effect to gaining energy to the system than the extra weight overcoming air resistance (because again of square-cube law).. In other words, the engine is becoming more efficient the slower the plane becomes (because of square-cube law of drag).. It's this that something feels off in that the heavier plane seems to actually decelerate faster than the lighter plane at speeds it should not. It's very difficult to test. I'm very much trying to get to the bottom of both explanation and understanding *mathematically* however I think the answer is significantly more complicated than myself nor anyone here is able to offer particularly since we do not have numerical values for things like air resistance. What I would expect should happen considering *ALL* of the above we have spoken about is this: I would expect to see the lighter plane achieve a higher altitude due to the efficiency of the engine adding to the system being significantly higher secondary to thrust:weight (With the heavier plane being ahead then overtaken by the lighter plane). With the engines off I would expect to see the heavier plane achieve a higher altitude and achieve that maximum altitude before the lighter plane. What I'm seeing is neither of these scenario's and that seems off to me. Also o7 to BlackDevil for contributing. I'd like to think we are all now having an intellectual discussion about the issue and not a slinging match.
  7. You cannot say "ignore inertia" because inertia is very relevant on any object in motion. The heavier plane should be reaching the end points before the lighter plane (up until a very critical point where the lighter one will 'catch up') Again like I said in the initial post, after a dive over maximum speed even straight and level the lighter plane still seems to bleed speed off just as slowly (or just as quickly) as the heavier plane. The lighter plane should slow down faster until the force the engine can provide is equal to the drag induced by the airframe. Every kph over that point is driven by its momentum and mass and at the same airspeed it experiences the same amount of external forces against against it (air resistance and gravity). t's not compressing/running into air in front of it any faster than the lighter plane so it's experiencing the same net negative force against it but it has more mass so those effects have less effect on it. The heavier plane will experience higher forces for longer only simply because it is not decelerating as rapidly but its higher inertia offsets this. The zoom climb extension i looked at it in principle as the same as the straight and level extension but with greater gravitational effect opposing the plane more directly thus slowing it down faster. (As opposed to viewing it as rotational momentum about an axis above it like a pendulum).
  8. Alkyan, naturally the lighter plane will accelerate faster on initial dive since its undergoing its acceleration produced by work of the engine which is still overcoming the negative effect of drag and conversely is also true. At the same velocity the air resistance is identical between the two massed planes so it's not that one is enduring more resistance than the other. The problem appears to be that the momentum/kinetic energy each carries doesn't appear to be correct (I concede the tests aren't perfect since we can't set an auto-pilot to fly the exact same flight path, but its near enough) Essentially, if those two planes were following side-by side or nose-to tail following a flight path to each other then we would expect to see that the planes should separate to begin with, the heavier plane falling behind. As the dive and speed continues the heavier plane should catch up toward the bottom and then should continue to pull ahead as the climb begins. As the climb nears the top the lighter plane should begin to make ground once more. That's not what appears to happen. (time to each point in space) - The only minor difference in time to points is more likely due to error in inexact flight paths (The turn of the dive took 3 seconds @ 100% and took 4 seconds @ 10% fuel) So in effect, the 10% plane spent longer in a state where it should have been decelerating more rapidly from less momentum yet still lost its energy at the same rate as the heavier plane. If I did the zoom climb with the engine off I anticipate the results would be the same, its the energy retention that doesn't feel right. It was a quick test and one that I think a dive to X speed to Z altitude followed by time to Y speed would indicate better. Alternatively could just autolevel to maximum speed and shut off engines and measure the deceleration rate between the two planes also. However its *over* the maximum speed that I suspect something is wrong that I was trying to measure quickly. You don't get to walk into a conversation and call people stupid and produce nothing yourself. It's hilarious you draw some analogy to operating a piece of machinery somehow gives you innate knowledge of newtonian equations. Not questioning virtual performance vs real world performance by the aircraft numbers themselves. e.g I'm not interested if the top speed of the real yak is 100kph and the virtual one is only 70kph. or if the real yak can "zoom" from 650kph and gain 2000m of altitude but the virtual one can only gain 1500m from 650kph. I'm interested in if the virtual yak's weight is not being modelled correctly against another virtual yak of a different weight.
  9. Here is screencaps from the vids so you can side by side comparison: I do note that the 10% vid the bottom of the dive is slightly lower and slightly faster [barely anything], but you would expect this to translate proportionally at the top as well (which it does not) Irrespectively, I was looking for tactically significant difference in zoom climb capabilities when compared against the tactically significant impact in turn/climb/acceleration ability. The short of this. There is no reason in a dogfight server to take anything more than the very bare minimum you think you will survive for. Theoretically taking too little fuel should result in excessive bleeding of speed in high to medium speed turns but I'm not sure this is the case either. I am beginning to wonder if fuel weight is modelled as an extra 'external payload' so to speak and adds some parasitic type extra drag which it should not. 100% Fuel: Very start http://s16.postimg.org/fa83wf203/100p_start.jpg 100% Fuel: Bottom of the dive http://postimg.org/image/615xmat41/full/ 100% Fuel: 300kph & Altitude: http://postimg.org/image/iee6fgtep/full/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10% Fuel: Start http://postimg.org/image/ubnrtdz5n/full/ 10% Fuel: Bottom of the dive: http://postimg.org/image/7yg16ky7v/full/ 10% Fuel: 300kph Altitude. http://postimg.org/image/ninex48cb/full/
  10. Perfect question shifty. I just double checked my video recordings and the start was 2000m. The dive both 10% and 100% hit 650IAS at precisely 1000m (almost imperceptible difference in the analogue altimeter). But before that, why a turn climb over a pure unloaded zoom climb? An unloaded zoom climb is the perfect test of mathematical inertia and momentum. (perhaps I've answered my own question there by choosing 60 degrees... However at that constant angle I still think the amount of effort the wings would have been assisting to the energy system is minimal and its easier to hold steady than pure 90 degrees) Since we are eliminating the variables of air resistance (Same altitudes and same initial speed - as we know air resistance is squared for a given velocity therefore double speed quadruples resistance is not a factor here) and square-cube law (same wing/aerodynamic profile by using the same plane) and lift factor. A Yak-1's empty weight: 2,330Kg (just a quick google, exact weight isn't terribly important) If 1L of fuel is approximately = 0.8 Kilograms (this is a pretty respectable estimation) 100% fuel = 408 L = 326.4Kg That's 14% of the entire aircrafts empty mass! That is mathematically significant! 10% fuel is 40L (ingame readout) a measly 32.6Kg or 1.3% of it's empty weight! So at 100% a fully laden Yak-1 = 2656.4Kg At 10% = 2362.6Kg That alone tells you its momentum values and an idea of its inertia since inertia is merely mass as a resistance to change in velocity. Mathematically for momentum we get: p = mv p = momentum m = mass (kg) v = velocity. (m/s) p = (2656.4)(180.6m/s) = 479745.84kg x m/s! That is *alot* of momentum. For the unladen plane: p = (2362.6)(180.6) = 426685.56kg x m/s! Which indicates the near-empty plane only carries 88.9% of the loaden planes momentum [or 11.1% less momentum] at 650kph. This is really just a fancy way of saying the lighter plane is 11.1% of weight of the heavier one but its placed into pure physics form. The difference for turn and lift capability comes from the fact that as far as fuel goes, it is absolutely dead and useless mass until the very moment it is being ignited in the engine. Of which the empty plane is carrying 1.3% extra useless mass vs 14% for the laden plane. It *should* be useful mass for other purposes such as energy retention in a straight line but it just doesn't add up mathematically in game. It sure as hell gives you the penalty to turning and lift, but it does not provide the benefit it should in other areas. Now, since the forces acting on the two planes are basically the same (gravity and air resistances as discussed earlier) it is clearly evident the heavier plane *should* be achieving higher zoom-climb altitudes than they are. A quick revision of my initial numbers [i was in a hurry typing up to get out the door for work earlier]: I correct my starting altitude: it was 2000m not 1500m. 100% fuel - exactly 900m altitude when the nose passes through horizon line. 10% fuel - exactly 850m altitude. (this would be accountable for a marginal difference in how tight the turn at the bottom of the dive was, I'd say 50m is pretty good for manually flown!) Either way -50m and a minor difference in turn radius should not have equated to negating a 12% difference in momentum for final achieved heights:speed ratio. TL:DR The 1.3% vs 14% weight differential is tactically significant and reflected well in-game. (This differential mathematically puts a value on the difference in turn capability, climb and acceleration) The 11.1% momentum difference is also tactically significant but not reflected well in-game. (This should put a mathematical value on energy retention after dives/in zooms/in long fast turns) The heavier plane should have achieved a higher airspeed at any given/chosen altitude you want to look at through the zoom climb and thus a higher altitude overall The reason I chose to ignore any altitude over 200kph is because power:weight and acceleration capability [prop hanging] becomes the domineering factor and at 200kph it becomes too difficult to keep the plane from wallowing to keep a fair comparison to angles of attack/drag. It's 01:25hrs here so hopefully I didn't mess up any copy-pasting of moving thoughts around.
  11. They should work on fixing the rudder issue tbh. Half the planes fly more like Aerobats than warbirds. Way too much rudder authority and way too sensitive once the S-curve catches up even the slightest virtually imperceivable amount of pressure on the rudder device you're using translates to some silly wobbles like you're trying to do a Delta-Air and rip your own vertical stabiliser off.
  12. Am I missing something? Has anyone else noticed there seems to be extremely limited effect of inertia on zoom climbs with respect to fuel? (However there is a significant difference to sustained turn ability, acceleration and powered [non-zoom] climb etc). This seems contradictory to what inertia and mass would have me believe... Same aerodynamic profile (obvious controlled variable) utilising a yak with ~10% fuel will end up at the same point as a yak with 100% fuel... In the same amount of time. Not only that but the near empty plane seems to dive just as effectively and even appears to bleed virtually the same amount of speed off on the straight and level per second as the fully laden one. Something does not seem right with this. I would expect an initial faster acceleration at the start of the dive with less fuel and a slower deceleration at the top of the zoom climb as the carried inertia becomes less relevant and power:weight becomes more relevant. (And conversely for more fuel) This is not the case at all. I've tried to do a few quick tests and there seems to be very very little difference between 10% and 100%. Starting quick mission at 1500m. Close rads. Mixture ~Full Rich Prop RPM - Max (2700rpm) Accelerate to 400kph. initiate dive (picked a point on ground to aim at for each test to keep minimise nose rating/climb curve variable). At 650kph pull smoothly to a ~50-60 degree zoom climb to minimise AOA drag. The two 'closest' replicated dives/climbs I could replicate were : 100% Fuel - 300kph --> 400kph (Autolevel, full closed rads @ 1500m) - 13 seconds 100% Fuel - 650kph achieved in 23 seconds. (Timed from the moment the nose moved from the horizon off autolevel) 100% Fuel at 300kph - 2590m (21 seconds from time of nose crossing horizon to altitude and speed achieved) 100% Fuel at 200kph - 2880m (29 seconds from time of nose crossing horizon to altitude and speed achieved) 10% Fuel - 300kph --> 400kph (Autolevel, full closed rads @ 1500m). 11seconds 10% Fuel - 650kph achieved in 22 seconds. (Timed from the moment the nose moved from the horizon off autolevel) 10% Fuel at 300kph - 2560m (23 seconds from time of nose crossing horizon to altitude and speed achieved) 10% Fuel at 200kph - 2880m (30 seconds from time of nose crossing horizon to altitude and speed achieved) Now the time difference could actually more be a slight difference in pulling up from the dive and slight inconsistencies holding the same angle etc. however this is both visually as close as I could get on reviewing captured video. The differences in all the tests are marginal at worst. For a 90% reduction in fuel this doesn't seem right... With more fuel I would expect the heavier plane to be a reasonable amount higher than the lighter plane by the same loss of speed (2560m vs 2880m). 320m is a decent amount, but even still... The lighter plane should have lost more inertia to aerodynamic drag than this I would have thought.
  13. Hahahahahaha I had the second post in this thread and my post got mysteriously deleted because and I said something very similar to: "BoS is clearly the best choice of the three here and I voted for it. However I am doubtful of the intelligence of the average person to not vote for a game that is already $0.99 and will receive 25% off if it doesn't win and vote for something to bring it down to $0.50c" Steam just went a little ways in to proving the average intellect is actually rather stupid and full of antisocials. Check the steam community, a lot of people voted for it just to "piss people off". That there is the very definition of antisocial personality. Shame as 777/1C are the ones who potentially lose out the most, BoS deserved the extra discount and the increased income/purchases it would have likely gotten from impulse buys.
  14. Yeah voted for it. Its easily the best choice of the three. Although I don't hold my hopes that people are silly enough to discount an already $0.99 game. More people for MP would be good. Haven't flown in weeks myself as i've had enough of 400ms pings.
  15. That isn't what the thread is about... It's about people stacking the teams over a 3 or 6 to 1 ratio and refusing to fly the inferior plane to balance teams. "unbalanced planes" does not equal unbalanced teams. One is attributed to the vehicle, the other is attributed to numbers of players.
  • Create New...