Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

About CaK_Rumcajs

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. This assumption may be wrong. It has already been explained here by Crump that it's a bit more complicated. The aneroids are a part of mechanism that is actually used to determine air density. The gear change is driven by air density which of course is a function of temperature and ambient pressure. Your statement looks like it was only a function of barometric pressure. We do not have a gauge to measure air density. There is nothing in the cockpit to use as a reference to check anything.
  2. Thank You Crump for all your valuable input. I'm also grateful for the army of uniformed individuals who has pushed you to post all the information you have posted so far. I as an enthusiast who is not an airman take your posts as a great source of knowledge. To all the [Edited] : As far as I know Crump has taken an important part in a FW 190 restoration and actually managed to get it airworthy. You have next to zero experience comparing to him. But I encourage you to continue arguing. It propels Crump to post more real information that some can appreciate. Keep it civil.
  3. What if the MP mission creator could choose the skins available in their mission? If the server was able to distribute the skin set available in the mission it would solve many needs. Ofc there is a real problem with current skin implementation. Those are immatriculation numbers and markings. The lack of implementation of generic squad skins + markings in text form is a significant shortcoming of the sim. My point is let us create generic skins, allow MP servers distribute their limited skin sets and we are done. No need to take care of skin packs on the part of the developer.
  4. There is a problem with vulching. It's the AAA. We have AAA with laser precision. It's to substitute large numbers or inaccurate WW2 AAAs for small number of computer aimed AAAs. And here it comes. If someone silences the 4 machineguns and couple of AAA canons the enemy airfield is unprotected. Easy for the vulchers to score. The peek strategy is to bring a tank to close vicinity of an enemy airfield and score by hitting spawning and landing AC. But this all is feasible because of the engine limitation that dictates mission designers to exchange number of AAAs and other defenses for stupid unbelievable accuracy. I hope the planned shift to x64 and better multi-threading support will eliminate this nonsense. This trade accuracy versus numbers doesn't bring anything good.
  5. A multi-threaded solution would be able to use many cores. Imagine we have hundreds of objects that have their state evolving over time. Some of them use sophisticated physical model. Mainly the aircraft we fly and also AI pilots fly. Each of them may evolve its state in parallel. Even a single-core processor is able to run many threads. It's the task of the task manager to assign logical threads to physical cores or the task of the thread pool to solve the logic. There is no need to predict number of physical cores on each software solution layer. Also there is no reason to limit 8 or even 16 core PCs because someone else can't afford so powerful PC. Many of us do not want to end up with canonical "640kB should be enough for everyone" today adjusted for "4 cores ... for everyone".
  6. This may be a very radical opinion. I wouldn't throw BOS away too fast even if it is without VR support. Why? DCS has no WW2 gameplay. There is virtually nothing you can do to resemble WW2 air and air to ground operations. The sensation of VR may be impressive but the lack of content will keep people in BOS/M/x. I'd also love to see BOS evolving but before VR i want to see 64bit executable, DX 11 supported and multicore scaling improved. Plus there is an endless field of potential content that i put above VR in my preference ladder.
  7. What if you focused on commenting on the data provided? It would help the debate tremendously. There are the facts Kwiatek has collected. Do you have anything to say regarding the performance the FW can achieve in game? Do you have sources of real world performance of corresponding type that would contradict Kwiatek's claims? Can you comment on the method Kwiatek used to collect the in game data? Do you have anything to say to contribute? If not it's you who comes to talk about Kwiatek's language and agenda ... I would love to see you commenting from the perspective of data, not feelings or emotions.
  8. Real world performance was only a part of a design success. In real success is always a combination of performance, tactics, pilot skill, numbers etc. We are judging success almost entirely based on performance. We use different measures to make conclusions and to score kills. Once I read in BoB the usual encounter between attacking Hurricanes and Luftwaffe bomber only took couple of seconds. The Hurricanes dived on their targets, fired and fled. The German fighters were often not able to follow to use their superior speed to catch them and punish them because that would leave the bombers unprotected. We do not suffer from excessive centrifugal forces. Maneuverability comes so easy. We are comfortable armchair warriors. Once I read that aiming at 5G is pretty difficult if not nearly impossible for most. Not a big problem for us. Real world use of air forces relied on attacks of groups of aircraft. Lonely wolfs were not so common. In group engagements coordination and training make the trick. How coordinated way of use do we sport? I named couple of differences to prove my point which is: It's impossible to project real world success / failure of individual types into the game success. Only numbers shall be considered. So is the Mig 3 we have a good interpretation of war machines? I guess it's a very carefully chosen subtype modeled with a grain of optimism. In the end it's only a game and as such it has to be fun for both sides.
  9. I believe the Bf 109F4 was first introduced with stabilizer trim missing. Regardless of trim technology it had no trim when it was introduced to Beta BOS.
  10. The Bf 109F4 was one of the first aircraft modeled in BOS. It was created even before elevator trim was introduced. Its FM has been modified countless of times. The G2 came also during the BOS open beta phase and has undertaken lots of FM changes as well. Direct comparison to the Bf 109E7 leads me to the conclusion that the older FMs are less fine tuned than the new ones. That would make sense since the game evolves over time. On the other hand any revisions to already existing FMs cost money and consume man days available. Still I have high hope that the F4 and G2 are not totally abandoned and the devs will update their FMs to match the quality of the E7.
  11. Yep i know, but there is a large difference in response of individual aircraft we have. This can't be attributed to sensitivity only. First of all the real world aircraft had different amount of directional stability. This must be somehow seen in the FM provided. So I say what we are seeing is different FM in the first place. Sensitivity comes into play but it's a minor issue here. The simple fact that instability can be countered by human input if treated slowly is not an argument. I'm not saying what we have in game is OK or wrong. As I said I have no way of knowing. But it's definitely directional instability a then maybe sensitivity to elevator input. Also compare the Bf 109 E7 versus F4. How do you explain the huge difference? Did the Germans design a more difficult to control airplane with the F generation? Or is there a different stability model in game? I guess it's the latter. (but again I have no way of knowing which is closer to reality)
  12. I gave it a try and tested different sensitivity settings. Both slow near center and fast near center. With each I got some positive results but also negative results. After 2 hours of all that I returned to strictly linear responses and 0 filtering. No, this try to shift the debate from instability to response curves doesn't make sense. What we are seeing here are different stability settings. They may be amplified by different sensitivities but base for the directional instability behavior is ... simply put "directional instability". I have no way to know it simulated instability is within reasonable margin of error or not, but i strongly believe we shall focus on finding real world (in)stability responses. Anything else is doomed to have zero impact on the game.
  13. Peter and how are related elevator deflections of both types and corresponding responses? It looks like you think that equal deflections will lead to equal responses. This most likely is not true. And unless you can answer questions regarding deflection and response of mentioned types there is zero chance your 1.55 coefficient has any reasonable meaning. Believe me, it's much more complex to run some simple math in the forum post to prove anything.
  14. Deflection of tail surfaces and stick sensitivity is not a simple function. It's impossible to put an equal sign between elevator deflection of two totally different AC and make conclusions like Peter did. The relation is not this easy and simplification doesn't help. On top of that deflection of elevator and directional instability is also a complex function. All planes we have in BOS/BOM have certain amount of directional stability. Each and every type has its own model and these models differ on stability. What we are seeing here is a difference in stability of respective FMs. This difference may be amplified by different sensitivity functions for respective types but there is no way stability difference is only a function of different sensitivity. Also where did Peter pull those 10 and 20 degree numbers out from? Today we have got Mig 3 in BOM. Give it a try to test it. You'll find very well pronounced directional instability if you threat her roughly on elevator. The same goes to P40. How does that come some planes have poor directional stability and some don't? Well, they are different. They have different FMs and stability is a part of the FMs. I guess this thread shall more focus on finding appropriate real world documents than pulling theories out of thin air.
  15. Peter, with all due respect, what you wrote about responses is not only oversimplified but also wrong.
  • Create New...