Jump to content

Rama

Moderators
  • Content Count

    2074
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rama

  1. Maybe you missed it, but I don't try to explain anything concerning the models outcomes, nor do I participate to any FM discussion. I know it's useless. I just try to explain what can be usefull for the dev, and what isn't usefull for sure. Correct.... and you can say the same for physic theories. One theory is the best in the world until next one changes it abd become the King ot the Hill theory. Where did you read I'm defending the "current state of things". Can you quote please? Of course, Never said the contrary.... or were did I, can you quote? Maybe.... and he wi
  2. More probable for you (whatver interpretation it is). For the last point, I'll stay to the statement: "you can't define model parameters from non-quantitative description, and you can't control the outcomes with non-quantitative description". You can build an opinion/belief on the feeling of it.... but no more. The model itself (aka the mixt of physical laws and empirical solutions you choose to implement), may be driven by the qualitative "feeling" of the outcomes (like for exemple if the outer wing stalls before the inner wing in a fast symetric coordinate turn at 50°/60° inclination..
  3. Again, you're making hypothesis about how the models are developped and tuned, then draw conclusions from your hypothesis. I understand that since you don't really know about how Anton Petrovich is developping and tuning the FM, you'll stay doubtfull. So be it, I Can't help more. The point is that a yes/no test on a precise and detailed proposition, which error margin is known (or at least overestimated), is a quantitative data.
  4. Ok, I'll do Just need to remember to bring the camera at work....
  5. Do you mean that if a bunch of peoples insult you loudly and consistently, mock you and use you as a sarcasm target every time you post, you wont feel "hit". Good for you then, you're strong skinned and can endure everything. Do you think everybody is as strong-skinned as you are?... or worse, do you think there's no place on forums for soft-skinned peoples? Have you ever been on the banana forum?
  6. No, I'm not. No elevator move by itself. It's either a engine commanded by the pilot, or more commonly in WWII by a pilot in a plane.... "So max pitch authority given by the elevator only" implicitelly include "when actionned by the pilot". Considering, like you seem to do, the theoretical effect of an elevator who could magically reach max deflection or close at high speed is totally useless in a discussion about trim....In fact, if it could in real WWII planes, without any effort of the pilot, no trims would have been needed, and by consequence, no discussion about trim would happen in any
  7. No I'm not. The force the pilot can apply to pull the stick is part of the max pitch authority. No pilot is superman. Now if you ment that you could do the same with trim control surface on the elevator, yes you could. But it's much more efficient with changing the stabilizer AoA, and not only to reduce the drag. It also allows to get the same moment with a lower elevator deflection, thus reducing the deformation of the govern and the potential aerodynamic effects induced by this deformation.
  8. By this, BC means you can express every opinion or critic about the game but without insults or agression and keeping a civil tone. That's not censorship..... except of course if you consider that violence regulation is censorship.
  9. At high speed in a turn, even at high inclination, the stall AoA will not be reached with the max pitch authority given by the elevator only. Increasing the stabilized negative AoA will increase this authority (until the wing AoA does reach the stall AoA). ... so yes, it does increase the turn performance of the airplane at high speed... End of the story. PS: I don't ask you to understand....
  10. There's a WWII German built hangar on the place I work (in quite bad shape). Would you want some pictures?
  11. Except that, as explained before, the pilot accounts can't be related to a physical performances, and in the very few cases they could be (with a lot of hypothesis), it's with an error margin much larger than the performances quantitative values themthelves. That's why they're useless. They are not that limited, in particular for WWII, they are lots of data for some planes (and less for others). And yes all the data (in any domain), are subject to error, these error including random elements and bias elements. That's something you have to live with, it's the daily bread of the physic o
  12. I allready told you that the wording of this sentence was probably poor, and it may reflect something not intentionnal.... now you may off course refuse to believe me. I don't see anything about the overall tone of the rest of the message that could offend you. Maybe I'm really bad in english, or you're missreading, or want to feel offended? (just hypothesis to try to explain, I don't pretend anyone true, you're the only one that can know the real reason) Totally correct You're making hypothesis about how the FM builder work then draw hypothetical conclusions from them. Actually h
  13. As Luke said, it would be a lot of work to change the cities layout (who changed quite a lot) and to create a new set of airfields. the railroad network and road network would need some change too, as does all the textures to be adapted to BoS standards. So basically, all you would keep is the height map, the river map and some of the networks.... which is a very minor part of the whole work (and I know what I'm talking about since I did most of this very minor part....). BTW, on the western front map, the river layout is modern (I used a modern database) and if redone, it would be nicer wit
  14. This one yes. Some format change and it would work.
  15. Agree, the maps would need a lot of rework in order to be usable.
  16. You could maybe (not surrelly, many other aspects should be examined if you have only this anecdotal evidence) make the hypothesis that the turn radius and corner speed of the A6M could be better thant thos of the Wildcat. BUT: that's something you know with quite a good confidence because you have quantitative data to tell it. So what have you learned? AND: If you had no quantitative data, how would you use this hypothesis to tune the relative turn radius and corner speed of the aircrafts?.... Tell me, I would learn something if you find a procedure to do it. You could also ask yours
  17. For this kind of claims, you can: 1) either report a post by clicking on the "report" button in the bottom right of the post 2) send a PM to Bearcat 3) send a PM to Zak if you want to complain about a moderator. For your information, moderators can participate to discussions like everybody else. And it's not IMO a good thing for a moderator to moderate discussions in which he participate.
  18. What are you talking about? I'm not and wasn't angry. And your feeling or "sensation" of me being borderline abusive or using ad hominem attack is probably a missinterpretation of some "anecdotal evidences" in my text. Maybe shoud have had used "I would agree" instead of "I agree" in the text part you quoted, the following "you" obviously being a general "you", not directed at you specifically. If you feel abused by an hominem attack, please quote it, I will then see if it was a bad formulation that I should correct, or a bad interpretation, or a combination of the 2. In any case, there w
  19. Of course, that's what I said..... but still you can't feed or control a model with non-quantitative data. Moreover, if you have enough quantitative data, you can also quantify the error margin (so you can tell by how much you're wrong at max). Without quantitative data.... you have.... nothing usefull for a model... Yes/no test are quantitative data (binary value), I even gave an example how to measure it. But I suspect you male another missconception there.... if you think that yes/no tests have no error margin, you're completelly wrong.... and if you can't admit or better evaluate t
  20. That's probably why you just dived into it?...........
  21. No, your logic is faulty: not knowing how much faster aircraft A is compared to aircraft B tells that you have no data, made no measurement and that you don't know if plane A is faster than plane B... so that there's no fact at all. The only way to know it without knowing the respective top speed would be to make an experiment, in which: plane A and plane B start flying aside, on a level flight, in same atmospheric conditions, with same initial speed and altitude, then both pilots slam the throttle and if plane A go ahead of plane B, then she's faster. You know what?... this kind of experime
  22. .... I'm sorry but this is nonsense. If one anecdote tell that "aircraft A was measurably better than aircraft B", it means a measure has been done, and then this measure can be searched and maybe found. But anecdote don't tell that, they say "aircraft A was faster/better climber/more maneuvrable/etc... than aircraft B"... generally without telling anything about the conditions of the "observation", so globally useless.
  23. And that's exactly the problem. Since they've never flown a WW2 aircraft and never built a flight model, with the help of the literature, they build a belief of what it should be and what feeling it should give... .... but this belief is just a belief, that can be close or very away from reality (and they have no way to know how close or how far their beliefs are). And some of them can't understand that if the model reality contradict their feelings, they it is not necessary wrong... in fact, they've no possibility to know. But that's a human thing, the beliefs are allways stronger than the
×
×
  • Create New...