GS-paorel Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) Interesting video ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoDQ54UXARg I like to fly bombers. It seems that this simulator gives me more options than I originally thought. I am not sure if this is standard capabilities of He 111. Maybe some special acrobatic mod needs to be unlocked Edited October 29, 2014 by paorel
PeterZvan Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 Obviously you think that this should not be possible. Please explain why.
RedGuard Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 Come on, it looks darn cool, doesn't it ? Red
GS-paorel Posted October 29, 2014 Author Posted October 29, 2014 Obviously you think that this should not be possible. Please explain why. Why do you suspect me of bad thoughts? I am pleased that this medium bomber can fly this way.
Finkeren Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 There is something about the Heinkels behavior when very lightly loaded that smells a bit fishy. It's powerloading is rather poor (though still better than a fully loaded P-47) that it really shouldn't be able to do the loop from such a low energy state. However, it does have an exceptionally low wing loading (much lower than any fighter in BoS) and a thick, low aspect ratio wing built for low air speed performance, so who knows? Maybe it's correct? Some fairly big modern aircraft can do both barrel rolls and loops, though they're obviously not designed for it.
PeterZvan Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 Why do you suspect me of bad thoughts? I am pleased that this medium bomber can fly this way. Why open this thread than? To explain why I got annyoed - we had the same topic for a few days now in the Early Access forum. There the devs showed that this is what the physics will give you. Just because its a bomber it dosent automaticly mean that it can barely fly. And all these kinds of topics do is to ruin the reputation of the sim with not even a bit of proof that this behaviour is infact incorect. What happens is that someone posts - look at this arcade FM and posts a video and spreads it in forums.... And he does it without any sort of proof or explanation in why this is wrong. And most people just belive him that this is bad and label the sim as arcade. When infact following the physics this is all correct. The devs can do whatever at that point to prove that it is infact correct, however the original downplaying argument remains and people always than suspect that the sim is incorrect. Luckily for the people that come up with these unsubstantiated complaints and the following badmouthuing... this is the internet and not much can be done to fight this. However try doing the same thing to a big manufacturor of equipement or cars or whatever (run an advertisement against a companys product where you advertise damaging lies about someones product) and than you would be in a bit of trouble. We as the flight sim community are very smart and at the same time quite retarded - no wonder the state of the flight sims is like it is. 7
LLv34_Flanker Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 S! Entertainment values was good and good piloting.
GS-paorel Posted October 29, 2014 Author Posted October 29, 2014 Why open this thread than? To explain why I got annyoed - we had the same topic for a few days now in the Early Access forum. There the devs showed that this is what the physics will give you. Just because its a bomber it dosent automaticly mean that it can barely fly. And all these kinds of topics do is to ruin the reputation of the sim with not even a bit of proof that this behaviour is infact incorect. What happens is that someone posts - look at this arcade FM and posts a video and spreads it in forums.... And he does it without any sort of proof or explanation in why this is wrong. And most people just belive him that this is bad and label the sim as arcade. When infact following the physics this is all correct. The devs can do whatever at that point to prove that it is infact correct, however the original downplaying argument remains and people always than suspect that the sim is incorrect. Luckily for the people that come up with these unsubstantiated complaints and the following badmouthuing... this is the internet and not much can be done to fight this. However try doing the same thing to a big manufacturor of equipement or cars or whatever (run an advertisement against a companys product where you advertise damaging lies about someones product) and than you would be in a bit of trouble. We as the flight sim community are very smart and at the same time quite retarded - no wonder the state of the flight sims is like it is. Unsubstantiated complaints? Damaging lies? Some guy (apparently good pilot) tested Heinkel and posted funny video on Youtube. I do not think the test was somehow rigged.I don't ruin the reputation of the sim or the developers. I support them. I have bought BoS, most of planes in RoF and even Ilya Muromets . BTW I have also bought all "old" Il-2 series. I am simply interested in the goods, which I paid for. I do just the same thing when I buy a car, mobile phone or baguette for instance. in 3, 2, 1 LOCKED Do not be such a pessimist
DD_bongodriver Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) An He111 simply could not do this in real life, I do not care what the physics in a computer game tell us (any computer game), all aircraft can do loops and rolls if given enough altitude and speed, even the Lancaster bomber was recorded as having done full aerobatics to evade German search lights, but to do a full low level aerobatic routine straight from take off is pure fantasy. Now the devs of BOS could have a perfect opportunity for a real coup and make this the first simulator to correct this chronic problem with computer based entertainment simulators.........instead of showing us CloD videos and saying 'well everyone else's does' Edited October 29, 2014 by DD_bongodriver
SYN_Per Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 Are you suggesting they are not working on the "coup" when they get the time?
DD_bongodriver Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 Are you suggesting they are not working on the "coup" when they get the time? I'm not, but I am not getting the impression they are.
PeterZvan Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 An He111 simply could not do this in real life. Prove this. No need to fly it IRL or whatever - just write the physic where you prove that this is not possible. With formulas, equations...
DD_bongodriver Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 I don't need to prove anything, this 'should' be blindingly obvious. 1
PeterZvan Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 Of course you have to prove it if you say that this is the case. Blindingly obvious = perception which is questionable. Prove it with physics - that is the only proof worth anything. 2
DD_bongodriver Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 Prove to me that unicorns don't exist then and I will play your game.
SvAF/F19_Klunk Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) I don't need to prove anything, this 'should' be blindingly obvious. Well that's the problem with most claims and discussions about pretty much everything.. especially when it comes to our favourite genre .. what is perceived as blindingly obvious differs from one person to another: ending up in just... opinions. Facts are what counts, not opinions and to me at least there are only two ways to find out; emipirical observations (now not possible.. historical observations.. well we need sources....) and.. calculations.... Prove to me that unicorns don't exist then and I will play your game. that's a silly argument.. just as silly as "prove to me that God doesn't exist..... arguments for creationists..... and we don't want to go THERE do we? Edited October 29, 2014 by SvAF_Klunk 4
PeterZvan Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) hahahaha Typical evading tactics BS Seems that you dont know if the HE111 could or could not do this so what about not commenting on it, except if you infact can prove it. Edited October 29, 2014 by hqPeterZvan
DD_bongodriver Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 Enjoy the fantasy. hahahaha Typical evading tactics BS Seems that you dont know if the HE111 could or could not do this so what about not commenting on it, except if you infact can prove it. I suppose you have all the physics and calculations to hand that prove it could?
PeterZvan Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 And I will play your game - I have no way of proving that Unicorns dont exist as I cannot observe the whole universe. However you can prove or disprove your claim about hte HE111 with physics wich are freely avalible to you. Problem is that you most probably simply are not capable of using them to prove your claim (a thing that Devs acctually are capable of) I am not capable to prove it myself - I never stated if it could or couldnt do it. I infact dont know and am under no illusion that I am capable of knowing. You did state that you KNOW that it couldnt do it so you are the one that has to prove a point - would love to see a proof that the HE111 infact couldnt do this. 5
LLv34_Flanker Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) S! Having lot of fun in games where I do not have to think of historical accuracy or realism. What a bliss, really. No more nerve wrecking evenings cursing in front of the computer, just a few rounds of fun gaming and off to bed EDIT: In defence of Bongodriver. He could march over to Eric Brown, who is still alive and kicking willingly talking about planes, and ask about the He111. I believe he flew and evaluated pretty much all Axis planes and most of the Allied as well. Edited October 29, 2014 by LLv34_Flanker
DD_bongodriver Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 You did state that you KNOW that it couldnt do it so you are the one that has to prove a point - would love to see a proof that the HE111 infact couldnt do this. So you really believe that because of a computer game an He111 could be routinely put through a low level aerobatics routine from take off by any internet pilot simply because there is an arbitrary level of physics involved in making a computer flight model............I would have though Unicorns are right up your area of expertise.
PeterZvan Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 I dont belive anything - I dont know and have no way of knowing. You are the one that belives that it couldnt do it - prove it please and stop evading the question. And unicorns are in your area of expertise if you cant prove your arguments. 1
DD_bongodriver Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 I'm not evading anything, I'm as bold as brass making the statement 'it could not do it'. I am a pilot not a physicist, I don't have the means to provide reams of data you couldn't understand anyway.
Matt Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 What speed would it need to perform these maneuvers then. Should be quite easy to answer.
PeterZvan Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 So you are making a bold statement that it could not do it - but you cant prove your statement. So your statement has the credibility of around nothing. 1
Sparrer Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 S! I'm really impressed how FANBOYism can eat shi* and poo* raibows! :lol: :lol: :lol: 1
DD_bongodriver Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 So you are making a bold statement that it could not do it - but you cant prove your statement. So your statement has the credibility of around nothing. And your credibility is?
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) I'm sure it's not a speed but angle of attack vs drag issue. As i wrote ein my earlier test it loses very low speed when pulling extreme AoAs (there're infact other planes that also suffer from that, namely Yak, IL-2). Also with flaps set at 30° it gains magic elevator authority up to 20km/h in a 70° climb. Flaps shouldn't physically nor aerodynamicly cause an increase in elevator authority. But again it's not the only plane "suffering" from this issue. It's most likely an overall FM issue effecting every plane ingame more or less. Edited October 29, 2014 by [Jg26]5tuka
LLv24_Zami Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 Yes it seems very strange to me that devs have to prove absolutely everything on every angle of their work if someone questions it. But if the experts here make claims they dont have to prove absolutely nothing. That is funny to me 2
PeterZvan Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) And your credibility is? None - I acctually dont need it as I am not claiming anything. You are the one claiming something with no proof and no credibility. Edited October 29, 2014 by hqPeterZvan
DD_bongodriver Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 Yes it seems very strange to me that devs have to prove absolutely everything on every angle of their work if someone questions it. But if the experts here make claims they dont have to prove absolutely nothing. That is funny to me The 'experts' haven't charged you $100 to believe them. None - I acctually dont need it as I am not claiming anything unlike you. Your contrary position to my statement is a 'claim' as such it needs the same level of credibility.
LLv24_Zami Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) The 'experts' haven't charged you $100 to believe them. Okay, nice dodge Carry on! Edited October 29, 2014 by Zami
Bearcat Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 ... or not. Bear in mind that I have no idea whether or not the OP was being faceteous or not and the lock has less to do with the OP and more to do with the well trod ensuing debate.
Recommended Posts