Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I can tell you .. the FM is wacked and not just a little it's not even a question of max performance, climbing or turning rate. something happens in the new update that is wrong.  But again how do you want the Devs to know how to make a good FM for a Yak if they just don't know..and it is hard to do .. they should work much more into physics than performances ,there are real engineer phd in flight, aerobatic pilots and actual real Yaks pilot and this is rare to find here..I wont say more. They just don't know pure and simply. For the Devs to actually have some infos that we can give them would cost to much in the outside.Imo Giving free advice diminish the value to their eyes.

Edited by GOZR
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you .. the FM is wacked and not just a little it's not even a question of max performance, climbing or turning rate. something happens in the new update that is wrong.  But again how do you want the Devs to know how to make a good FM for a Yak if they just don't know..and it is hard to do .. they should work much more into physics than performances ,there are real engineer phd in flight, aerobatic pilots and actual real Yaks pilot and this is rare to find here..I wont say more. They just don't know pure and simply. For the Devs to actually have some infos that we can give them would cost to much in the outside.Imo Giving free advice diminish the value to their eyes.

 

Andrey Petrovich Solomykin has just as much knowledge - and far more experience in programming a computer flight model, and he's a real engineer. Real actual Yak pilots don't offer data, they just offer feels. The game is based on physics, very complicated physics. Andrey does know, pure and simple.

Edited by FuriousMeow
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any flight model "opinions" at this point in development are counterproductive unless they're accompanied by real hard data submitted to the developers.

"Whacked" is not hard data...

Edited by SharpeXB
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No actually game physic could simulate in 100 % real flying. If you belive only in game physic you are naive fanboy :)

 

Did I say it could? No. I did not. I've known for a very long time that computer physics can't replicate real world, they can get close. There's already a far more complicated FM that has been developed by this team but even the best of systems out there wouldn't be able to run it very fast.

If you say so. :)

 

I do. You can even look it up, there's a wonderful thing called google.

Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 Why even care about flight models? Every FM is just a vision of it's respective creator. Nothing else. Get them right or even close? Dream on. Our feeble machines could not even handle proper stall behaviour or how the airflow changes during high AoA. No matter how "complex" desktop PC FM, it is at best only an approximation and streamlined version of the real deal. Enjoy the "feel" and the game, less pain inflicted :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No actually game physic could simulate in 100 % real flying. If you belive only in game physic you are naive fanboy :)

 

No more of that. All this is relative. Physics modeling is not confined to just FMs either and BoS gets it quite well. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also the impression that downing planes in sp is easier than in mp. Apart from lag I'd say it is also because humans can fly planes further to the limits.

 

But the lag is really a problem imho and they need to address this. I don't remember of the same difficulties in old IL2 where the aim scheme was the same between sp and mp and only the different use of planes depending on pilot made the difference.

 

Now the lead one has to take is different from sp and mp imho.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel tired form repeating this but again buldng FMs is not pulling a master formular out of your math books and calculate every single number of it. It's a virtual envirounment with virtual parameters.

Some of which are purely virtual while others can be filled with real data and calculations. How it works out in a game engine is another thing with weather and controllers playing a major role.

 

@ Flanker well FMs bother me a lot as it's what keeps me fascinated about BoS. The feeling is unmatched and with some refined FMs it would be totally authentic and great.

Nobody of us will ever fly the 109 or 190 in real live so we surely can't knwo how it should "feel" ingame, but we can still tell what's most liekly wrong like the rudder behaviour and other things judging form our flight expiriences and/or real test reports.

 

If I had to chose out of 2 FM devs, one promising me 100% mathematical accuray and the other wonderfull and authentic feel of flight, I'd surely go for the later. BoS seems to slightly stagger between both with some but noticeable flaws.

Edited by [Jg26]5tuka
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 If we could feel the G forces, game would change a lot  ;) Fatigue, g-loc and all that..No more "yank-da-stick-o-rama" :)

 

I have often thought that since black out and red out are modeled already it would be possible to have a means of making them have a cumulative effect - a fatigue bar, in effect, that would slowly replenish in level flight, but that started to give a reduction in the controller input curve or max deflection as it reached a high level of fatigue.

 

People would complain that this was "arcade" of course - so much more realistic to be able to pull high Gs indefinitely.

Edited by unreasonable
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I might get that reaction - if there was a "fatigue bar" it should be configurable, ie hideable. Then an experience pilot could try a couple of missions with the bar showing to internalize how the system works, then hide the bar and never have to see it again. The fact is that since most of us have never experienced flying with sustained high Gs we have no idea how this could affect our performance, so we would need an indicator until we had learned our tolerance. 

 

Which said tolerance could be increased by unlocks or pilot level, giving even more incentive for MP people to play the SP campaign! (Just kidding ;) )

 

No, I will not be requesting health bars for the Heinkels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fatigue bar is typically driven by individuals that prefer to "boom n zoom" in the strictest of sense. High speed pass, go straight up, come back down, repeat. The assumption is that is easier than turning consistently, when in fact it takes quite a bit more strength to pull out of high speed dives and to constantly manuever the aircraft at very high speeds to maintain a favorable position. The invidiual in the slower turning pattern in many cases is actually using up less physcal energy to maintain those lower speed manuevers because there is less force on the control surfaces, and thusly less required strength to pull through.

 

That is why the pilot fatigue model is highly championed by individuals that prefer to beleive there are only two forms of air combat, TnB or BnZ, when there is actually neither but instead a world of manuevering that is neither TnB or BnZ but actually simply E-management.

 

However, barring that complexity of air combat - a fatigue meter would actually have to be dynamic and would hurt the "BnZ"ers more because it requires more strength to maneuver at higher speeds consistently than in a close in low speed knife fight where the stick forces would be considerably lighter.

 

Additionally, many of the "BnZ" pilots typically revered for their BnZness would engage in close quarter combat with Yaks, LaGGs, P40s, etc and come out just as fatigued and sweaty as their foe - only the mistake the other pilot made theri victory if they did get one and both didn't bug out, and that latter bit happened often. Very few kills were due to pilot exhaustion.

 

Low speeds, low G, low stick forces - that pilot will actually not tire out as fast as someone pulling high Gs with high stick forces consistently wrestling their aircraft into position against a slower moving foe which would require a lot of strength to consistently do so.

 

So a fatigue element, would require a lot of indepth research and a sensible approach - not just assuming because a plane zoomed in at 500km/h, the pilot put both boots against the firewall to wrestle the plane out of a dive and not even get a fleeting snapshot that he will win just due to superior speed or altitude. The poor TnBer actually might outlast the high speed BnZer in that purely two sided approach to aircombat that exists in solely one realm - the virtual air combat one.

 

A fatigue element is gamey in the very nature of its intent - to punish those who "TnB" vz those who "BnZ" even though it requires more strength to "BnZ" which would lead to a much quicker onset of pilot fatigue.

Edited by FuriousMeow
Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 Booming targets is far less straining than turning, I dare to argue about that. If you boom and zoom the attack profile is more shallow. You do not come in at 80deg angle and then make a maximum G pull up. Yes, you are subjected to some G, but in shorter durations. Also if you look at when the boomer shoots at his target, it is during low G situation to maximise hits and minimize required lead. Basically at the bottom of the maneuver or in the shallow climb from below. In pure turning fight, and I mean above stall speed to keep E at somewhat good levels, requires more strength as you are constantly subjected to G. Compare what Marseille's books says, that he was extremely tired after his missions, because he was a pure turn fighter. Same applies to many other books I've read, that after a hard fight pilots were fatigued due the stressing nature of constantly turning. I think the fighter jockeys at work can agree that after a turn fight oriented excercise they are more tired than after doing booming on a slower but better turning target.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Figured you'd respond, you expect it to be easiest to zoom down attack, zoom away, and thats that. While turn fighters would be malnourished weaklings.

 

Stick forces, speeds, and pilot strength play a lot of roles in all of it. It isn't a simple cut and paste, Zoom pilot = teh win because teh not use teh strength. TnB pilots = teh lose becuz teh so not strongs and can't keep pulling lighter control surface forces.

 

It isn't cookie cutter, and the biggest point of all is that there is no BnZ or TnB. That is an invention by online aces. There is air combat, and there are energy states, and there are ways to manuever - but TnB and BnZ are strictly an online air combat mold that aircraft fit into due to simplification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As neither a TnB or a BnZ type - I just do what seems appropriate in the circumstances - I have no desire to punish anyone. The idea is simply whether a sustained fatigue effect would lead to more realistic player behavior, whether online or off. Now it may well be that sustained fatigue does not play a large part in RL pilot effectiveness, in which case the idea is superfluous. Either way, the motivation for the comments has no logical bearing on their truth or falsehood.

 

Actually, I am sure that by far the main reason that player behavior in the game bears only a passing resemblance to RL is that there is no true death. Having a member of the dev team standing behind everyone with a revolver when they fly might do the trick, but I imagine that it might be unpopular. Given that the question is whether anything can or should be done to bring game pilot behavior more closely into line with RL.

 

The pilot response is measured through red-out and black out and wounding mechanisms, so I do not see why the measurement of fatigue should be any more "gamey". Certainly it cannot be as "gamey" as unlocks and leveled monsters, so it should be right up 1C-777's street.

Link to post
Share on other sites

got chartz???

 

no true death, no G forces, no combat fatigue (no matter how many nights in a row you stay at your PC playing a game and guzzling cheetos) no freezing temperatures, and on and on lol

 

so yeah - please stop trying to compare uberness to each other, or the FM DM superiority of one 'side' over the other - its just so sad when this is just a game meant to pass the time for the sake of entertainment and people are crying about every stupid little thing not because theres anything really wrong - but because they suck at flying -

 

dont forget to raise your landing gear FNEBS

Edited by Heywooood
Link to post
Share on other sites

fatigue is rubbish in the sim.. I'm already tired by squinting to look for dots and spend time in front the PC late.. no need for another Call of Duty stuff  sorry. . Wait until you get the Virtual Glasses and you will get tired for real.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Redout and blackout are quantifiable limits for humans. More trained they are by today's standards and with G-suits, they can maintain more - but those are actual limits.

 

Fatigue is a completely arbitrary value. It's like taking a game that simulates kayaking. Someone that does it once a week, they won't win anything. Someone that trains every day all day, and they will kick ass. Fatigue is a value that can't be set. Redout and blackout are inherent limits set in the human physical ability. Even without G-suits, there is only so much a trained individual can overcome - and back in WWII, they didn't have the same level of G training that exists today. They had very little level of Gloc prevention training. Hell- back in WWII they thought African Americans brains were ill-equipped to fly freaking planes - so back then, Redout and blackout is a global setting because there was little understanding of it and there was very little training in ways to prevent it.

 

Redout/blackout - makes sense, absolute physical limiits.

 

Pilot fatigue, no - there are too many variables to it.

Edited by FuriousMeow
Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 FMeow. It is about constant G vs periodic G. In a turn fight you are subjected to continuous changes in G forces. It will wear you out quicker than if doing high speed passes and keeping G tolerable, not to bleed that precious energy. But I bet you would propably tell real fighter pilots how wrong they are ;) The last 17 years been talking with them at work, so basing my argument on that. I think they know better as they fly on daily basis high performance fighters, not lawnmowers with wings ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fatigue is not arbitrary, it is a physical reaction that is measurable and has know causes, just like black out and red out. And like them, individuals vary in their tolerances and can train to increase them. So of course it could be set, just as the recovery time from black out has been set in the game.

 

Obviously you do not like the idea. Fine, just ignore it, no need to bring weak arguments against it.

 

Personally I think it is of very low priority even if it were both practical and desirable, given the other weaknesses and omissions in BoS's current state, especially the ctds, but if it was doable eventually I think it would be an interesting addition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any flight model "opinions" at this point in development are counterproductive unless they're accompanied by real hard data submitted to the developers.

"Whacked" is not hard data...

The developers post youtube videos of different aircraft in different flight sims to prove their flight model point. I think this considerably lowers the bar when it comes to "hard data" requirements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before introducing more feautures I'd preferr to see some improvements done to the current FMs. They surely need an overhaul in some areas and they might help to increase flight emersion further.

 

Don't knwo about your idea Unreasonable, but it's not very suitable in my opinion. Remember real pilots suffered mental stress, fear, physical stress while flyin for hours. It's no wonder those man were had no fatigue after that.

Our sorties ingame last roughly 30min max, we have no stress, don't have to mind our virtual live ect. It all leads to a completely different situation where fatigue would simply be a virtual parameter to artificially "punish" players.

 

What I'd definetly like to see is better G-force simulation. Not FM wise, but accusticly like in the Battle of Britan sim where the wings and structure create sounds of moving and cracking metall ect. This is fantastic and an easy way to singnal a player he's overstressing his plane.

Edited by [Jg26]5tuka
Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 FMeow. It is about constant G vs periodic G. In a turn fight you are subjected to continuous changes in G forces. It will wear you out quicker than if doing high speed passes and keeping G tolerable, not to bleed that precious energy. But I bet you would propably tell real fighter pilots how wrong they are ;) The last 17 years been talking with them at work, so basing my argument on that. I think they know better as they fly on daily basis high performance fighters, not lawnmowers with wings ;)

 

The last 17 years you have been speaking to jet fighter pilots. They do things a bit differently, again - the G understanding and body loads are again a new technology unknown of at the time of WWII. Just barely understood, so today's pilots don't compare to WWII pilots.

 

The crux of the matter isn't the tolerance of the pilots, its the infalliability of the German engineering. No way could a 109 ever be downed by a lowly "TnB" only plane. Even if that "TnB" plane were flown with energy management at the forefront and not just viscious yank n bank.

 

Place this in the Pacific Theater. Place a couple of great Japanese aces in aircraft that are "TnB" as you say, against American "BnZ" as you say. Those poor Japanese pilots sure would be done in because of their continuous Gs, and continous manuevering, and what not.

 

But you know just as well as I do that there was a famed engagement by Saburu Sakai against 15 Hellcats. Lets make it generous and just say 3 Hellcats. He still only had one eye and held them at bay. There was another famous Japanese ace that did the same thing, except in a different TnB only plane.

 

Someone forgot to tell those guys that if you TnB, you can't win because BnZ is the least exhaustive flight manuevering despite it having higher G loads and higher control surface inputs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fatigue is not arbitrary, it is a physical reaction that is measurable and has know causes, just like black out and red out. And like them, individuals vary in their tolerances and can train to increase them. So of course it could be set, just as the recovery time from black out has been set in the game.

 

Obviously you do not like the idea. Fine, just ignore it, no need to bring weak arguments against it.

 

Personally I think it is of very low priority even if it were both practical and desirable, given the other weaknesses and omissions in BoS's current state, especially the ctds, but if it was doable eventually I think it would be an interesting addition.

 

My statements are quite strong, thought out, reasoned, accurate and  they make the most sense of any of this fatigue. To you fatigue is just constantly pulling on a stick, that isn't fatigue. There are different levels of force at different speeds with different aircraft. There is no cookie cutter fatigue model. My statements actually prove those in favor of fatigue models haven't the slightest clue as to what it entails. G forces against the pilot are just one aspect of fatigue, stick forces at varying speeds add to fatigue, leverage of the stick would add or lessen fatigue.

 

There was no G tolerance training in the 40s. Yeah, these days they do - but back in the 40s flight was still very new - as was air combat. They were still designing bombers with the intent of them outrunning fighters in the beginning of the war.

 

Maybe if you want to present an idea, think it through because so far I've had the best reasons as to why a fatigue model is a failure before it even hits the drawing table.

Edited by FuriousMeow
Link to post
Share on other sites
"wings and structure create sounds of moving and cracking metall ect"

 

This is why I found ClOD or BoB  really bad about that.. This is not boats . ;) Buffers wind sounds effects yes but not the cracks sounds..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I never join in @fm discussions normally, and I am not sure it is something wrong about power weight ratio, wings slats. But I have read just about everything I can find about 109 pilots. In the endless discussion about 109 vs spitfire debate. There is one thing to be aware of.

While the Spit in this case was easy to fly and turn , it was seldom used to its limits since most pilots was afraid of going into a rather unrecoverable spin, while the 109 grew better for every bit of experience the pilot gained. 

The 109 needed experience to be flown properly. And in my point of view, no such experience are needed in the 109 we have to day.

I really can not prove the 109 got the wrong FM, but it is sure the easiest plane to fly in all maneuvers, and it simply should not be. It was not used as a turn fighter, Luftwaffe pilots avoided turn fights if they could, so this ability might be there with a good pilot. But that should mean many hours in it for mastering it.

Just my 2 cent´s, If I where a good fighter pilot I would show this, but I am tactical incompetent  :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haavent talk to anyone , but I can find the books and magazines I quote them from. I can quote just about every pilot on this. Dogfights was a situation everybody tried to avoid. It was a situation that happened , like in a stale mate. You really do not know the outcome, so next time you call out bullshit, be sure you know what you talk about or prove your point.

Anyway you see it, this is not the point. The point is 109 behavior, or do you think the 109 are difficult?

That plane had one limit, and that was the one that made allied forces not to use it. It was not a plane to put inexperienced pilots in. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My statements are quite strong, thought out, reasoned, accurate and  they make the most sense of any of this fatigue. To you fatigue is just constantly pulling on a stick, that isn't fatigue. There are different levels of force at different speeds with different aircraft. There is no cookie cutter fatigue model. My statements actually prove those in favor of fatigue models haven't the slightest clue as to what it entails. G forces against the pilot are just one aspect of fatigue, stick forces at varying speeds add to fatigue, leverage of the stick would add or lessen fatigue.

 

There was no G tolerance training in the 40s. Yeah, these days they do - but back in the 40s flight was still very new - as was air combat. They were still designing bombers with the intent of them outrunning fighters in the beginning of the war.

 

Maybe if you want to present an idea, think it through because so far I've had the best reasons as to why a fatigue model is a failure before it even hits the drawing table.

 

It is not just that they are strong, it is that that contrary to being well thought out they border on being utter drivel as well as being unnecessarily hostile in tone. I would be surprised if it were any other forum member behaving like this, but in your case it pretty much matches your usual contributions: bullying, sneering, condescending and ignorant, like a windbag version of BSR.

 

Firstly you bring in a complete red herring, namely this completely artificial TnB vs BnZ dichotomy which has nothing to do with the issue.

 

Even on this you do not seem to know what you are talking about - Zeros could happily BnZ against Wildcats because the zoomed much better, it was only against Hellcats that they had to be much more careful. This idea that there are TnB planes and BnZ planes makes no sense in isolation, it is about relative strength and starting position, not some innate behavior of the planes.

 

You say fatigue is arbitrary, but talk to any sports trainer and you will find that it is well understood, although obviously not by you.

 

Whether something was well understood in 1942 is irrelevant to whether it could or should be modeled now.

  

You say "to me fatigue is just pulling on a stick". This is complete crap and not stated or implied anywhere in my posts.

 

The forum is a discussion forum: most of the ideas here are only partially articulated, that is what allows discussion to take place. We do not need you to tell everyone whether an idea is well enough thought through to be worthy of discussion.

 

Quite frankly I do not care very much whether BoS gets a fatigue bar - GOZR's objection that we are all tired anyway from flying late after a day's work is both amusing and cogent, unlike your contributions.

 

All in all I have had it up to here with your aggressive behavior, and I suggest that you get help before it spills over into RL.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi people,

 

 

I Have been playing this game since sometime now and I have noticed, probably as most of you guys, that there is an important problem in it.

The superiority of German fighters is ridiculous. I have no doubt in there superior climbing  and speed capacities. Like I swear I would prefer to fly one of this 109s if my life was on the line cause they climb fast and high and fly at incredible speeds and these are the main keys to victory in the dogfight art, not mentioning the escape possibility in case of error.

 

Nevertheless, I have been searching and there is noplace, no book, no article I have ever read that mentionned 109's superiority in turn fights over the Yakovlev babies.... Quite the contrary....

 

So what I don't understand here and that I want explanation for is the following. diving on an already fighting 109 and starting a diving spiral, there should be no chance for that crazy german pilot to find himself behind me. the Yak turn rate is superior and the only option for the 109 should be to runaway.... but in this game, with the current flight model, no pb.... after losing 1,000m, slowly diving into defensive spiral the 109 find itself behind the yak..... WTF ? not mentioning low speed manoeuvers ..... how come I can never turn this hard that a 109 has to lose and go straight ???

 

let's make it clear I am not talking here about equilibrating the game or whatever gamer consideration... I am just talking about the pursuit of the correct flight model. Turn fight bellow 3000m MUST be at the advantage of the yak when starting the fight in the same or almost the same conditions as the 109. this is how it was and although I was not fighting at that time I guess that Erich Hartmann did not apply sistematically his 4 steps technic for no reason.... He must have know some how that he could lose turnfighting with other planes and this was the reason he never did....and also the reason he never got shot.... nothing to do with flying a UFO....

 

 

I really am interested in knowing if there are other players agreeing with me and especially if the developpers are thinking that indeed there might be a problem in the flight model ???

 

 

 

Regards

 

First, let me say I'm absolutely horrible turnfighter. I agree with the old motto of aerial fight that "involving in close dogfight is the best way how to be shot down by guy you've never seen come in". Now some food for thought (general).

 

1) Not only the time of turn is important if you compare the turning performance. But the radius too. Actually if you have plane which turn faster but your opponent turn tighter (despite slower) he still be able to get solution on you. 

2) Many people thinks they just need to pull the stick to get the best turn from their plane. Far from to be true. In this way they lost the fight in I-153 vs B-17 (exaggeration to illustrate my point). In example I can't turn and I know I'd lost the turnin' conquest even if my opponent would sit the exactly the same plane (like two 109s turnfight).

3) Energy consumption in turning. In example if you slip in or slip out in turn and your opponent makes the clear turn you loose to much E and ended on the wrong end of the fight. Even if your plane is better. Particularly in planes with so close turning performance as 109F/G-2 vs late Yak-1. It's directly connected with the previous point.

4) Speed in turn. The result of level turn at minimum speed could be totally different than in turn fight at e.g. 500 km/h.

5) Sustained turn or instantaneous turn? In example 190 eats Yak-1 alive in instantaneous turn at high speed, but now chance how to win a slow speed sustained turning in level.

6) All turning test are usually made with automatic setting (if it's available). But what happens when you switch the plane into manual settings and lets say close your radiator to decrease the drag. You could hold the fight for some time, even if you temporarily overheat your engine probably. Or overrev your engine a bit.

 

Turning performance is simply limited by so many things that is almost impossible to make general statement like "My plane has to outturn the other plane" unless you define the exact circumstances. 

 

I agree that the Yak-1 we have in BoS should have the edge in sustained level turn fight. But the difference against the F-4/G-2 should be in range of 1 maybe 2 seconds. That's 5 % - 10 %. Not much if you realized how much the actual plane performance is limited by the pilot's ability. And how often you have a chance to compare the turning performance under such specific conditions?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

To all: please leave the personal arguments out of the discussion.

If it's an absolute necessity to criticize each other's behavior, then do it by PM (only).

If not, moderation will take over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best sustained turn rate i had in the Yak-1 was 17-18 seconds at 250 km/h IAS. I did not manage that in any of the other planes.

 

Of course the Yak-1 eventually runs out of energy and has a harder time regaining that than any other fighter (excluding the LaGG-3), especially when you're at ground-level. And radiators make a huge difference, if you have them fully open, you can't turnfight nearly as well and will run out of energy very quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best sustained turn rate i had in the Yak-1 was 17-18 seconds at 250 km/h IAS. I did not manage that in any of the other planes.

 

Of course the Yak-1 eventually runs out of energy and has a harder time regaining that than any other fighter (excluding the LaGG-3), especially when you're at ground-level. And radiators make a huge difference, if you have them fully open, you can't turnfight nearly as well and will run out of energy very quickly.

Hold on, once you talk about sustained turn then immediately about running out of energy. What makes sustained turn sustained is that you can stay in it forever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on, once you talk about sustained turn then immediately about running out of energy. What makes sustained turn sustained is that you can stay in it forever.

 

That would be a sustainable turn :)

 

I think he means a turn that is not simply a change in direction, not intending to be a smartarse :blush:

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...