Jump to content

Reasons why i severely lowered my BoS flight time lately [from a BoS enthusiast]

II./JG77_Manu*

By II./JG77_Manu*
in Technical Issues and Bug Reports

 Share

Recommended Posts

unreasonable

unreasonable

Posted
Posted

Rise and shine drinker! My kind of drinking! ;)

Pitbull is in Tokyo: it is about midnight on Friday and he is out with his salaryman colleagues at a no-knickers school uniform hostess bar. Where I should be.

  • Upvote 2
GOAT-ACEOFACES

GOAT-ACEOFACES

Posted
Posted

Tokyo! Oh, well, that does change things! ;)

 

Guess I am the only one with the drinking problem! ;)

Turil

Turil

Posted
Posted

I explained it was my feelings.

Well, when I tried it I was able to fly everything I wanted to do, in a really unbelievebal way, without torque effect, endless manouvers, etc and I had let the gear down. I had big laugh and then I disinstalled it. I had a very positive a priori on DCS FM before testing though.

 

Well, you obviously played DCS in the "game" mode, not the "sim" mode. You can change the simulation level in the game options.

JtD

JtD

Posted
Posted

i desperately hope the devs dont ignore the obvious very many voices that want the plane to become the competetive killer it was back in the day and not the flying runawaybrick it is right now.

I sure hope they do ignore those voices and instead focus on the few who give actual credible input, such as the odd relation in Yak-1/Fw190 high altitude performance mentioned by Celestiale. It is a real shame that input like that gets swamped in one topic after another.

 

@PitbullVicious: The stuff you marked as blue output would instead be red input, specifically the rich-lean mixture adjustment. PM me for details, if you like.

SR-F_Winger

SR-F_Winger

Posted
Posted

I sure hope they do ignore those voices and instead focus on the few who give actual credible input, such as the odd relation in Yak-1/Fw190 high altitude performance mentioned by Celestiale. It is a real shame that input like that gets swamped in one topic after another.

 

@PitbullVicious: The stuff you marked as blue output would instead be red input, specifically the rich-lean mixture adjustment. PM me for details, if you like.

This is no shame its called "Forum" and "Freedom of speech". And i said it before: IMO it might not be the focke that necessarily needs to be "buffed" but more importantly the performance in relation to the other planes needs to be gotten right. The focke might be OK if it was the only plane in BOS. But it isnt, its a brick if compared!

Crump

Crump

Posted
Posted (edited)

No other sources, but I do have some questions/comments about this interpretation.

 

 

No other sources, but I feel ghost's are real.

 

Ok, nobody can dispute it nor is there any point to a discussion because it is not based on fact or reason.

 

Let's try and stick to logic and reason....unreasonable.  ;)

 

This is a logical, reasonable, and fits all the facts given by both BMW and the NACA!!

 

It even fits the basic physical laws that all internal combustion engines work upon.  It does not ask us to suspend belief in the physical world like the theory the engine changes gear based on pressure altitude requires.

 

 

There is, however,  no indication in the text that the mixture control has anything to do with the gear change. Hence my skepticism.

 

 

Sure it does, the supercharger gear change is a function of engine speed.

 

bmw801%20supercharger%20spindle%20distan

 

 

 

Answer the following simple questions unreasonable.

 

 

Does engine speed change at critical altitude?

 

YES, the physics says it must change..unless of course you believe it will not change speed.

 

 

When a pilot sets "Climb and Combat Power" 1.32ata@2700U/min and climbs up to the heavens.  

 

How does the system identify the correct density altitude (critical altitude)?

 

Mixture control has to be connected and control the system....it is the only thing measuring density and adjusting fuel to air ratio.

 

 

In fact the mixture control units entire job is to maintain a specific fuel to air ratio under an infinite number of atmospheric conditions.  That means control of the engine is required to do that job.

 

Mixture%20control%20adjusts%20butterflie

 

kg%20diagram.jpg

 

Does every possible atmospheric condition to keep the manifold pressure of 1.32ata have its own specific and unique fuel flow rate at a set air to fuel ratio?

 

YES, each fuel flow rate will be specific for only that manifold pressure and that specific atmospheric condition.

 

Mixture%20regulator%20keeps%20constant%2

 

 

Now, if you do not think it works that way....

 

Then explain how it does work to you in way that fits the physical laws of the universe, please!!

Edited by Crump
GOAT-ACEOFACES

GOAT-ACEOFACES

Posted
Posted

So based on your feelings you have made a decision in the absence of any facts?

Hello pot.. meet kettle?
Crump

Crump

Posted
Posted

 

 

It might be time to bring back a long-ago, long-forgotten thread:

 

This is not about a individual airplanes performance.  This is about the basic physics.  If engines are changing supercharger gearing based on pressure altitude instead of density altitude then it is not how the world works.

 

In the FW-190 for example, a significant portion of the airplanes power band would be removed besides it being a horribly inefficient and even damaging to the engine.  

 

The presumption would have to be that BMW engineers were just not competent and did not know how engines work. 

Crump

Crump

Posted
Posted

 

 

Hello pot.. meet kettle?

 

No Aces...

 

It is just a fact the gear change occurs at a constant density ratio representing a specific density altitude in an infinite number of atmospheric conditions.  It is just physics.

 

kommandogeraet_1940_p00349201-b_1.jpg

 

Things%20that%20make%20you%20go%20mmmmmm[/url]

GOAT-ACEOFACES

GOAT-ACEOFACES

Posted
Posted

It is just a fact...

FACT?

 

Do-not-think-it-means.jpeg

 

Consider using the word OPINION in place of FACT, that would be more accurate IMHO

wtornado

wtornado

Posted
Posted

I am sorry but the FMB was promised at the beginning.

 

 

The About the Battle of Moscow thread was closed.

 

Well Mr Jaws was right in that thread I had an old memory flash and went to
the SimHQ site it is a good place where I look at combat games.
 
I wanted a FMB and Cliffs of Dover did not deliver but!!!!
 
There was a glimmer of hope in this review that stayed in my heart. 
 
This review I have here was dated July 29 2013.
 
 
 
This is a quote from the article:
 
''One <sigh> I had was that the mission editor in Battle of Stalingrad will
basically be the Rise of Flight editor, just updated as needed for the new planes and missions.
While the dev team acknowledges that the editor can be a bit cumbersome to the uninitiated, it
is the same tool that the devs use to create all their missions – it is fully functional and very powerful, 
once you get the hang of it. The team expressed a desire to put some effort into making the editor more
accessible, but noted that their first priority will be Battle of Stalingrad’s gameplay. I’m hoping some
skilled and enterprising folks out there can not only make some immersive and well-designed missions, but
also take their time to create more tutorial guides and references for those of us that could use a little extra help''
SKG51_robtek

SKG51_robtek

Posted
Posted

FACT?

 

Do-not-think-it-means.jpeg

 

Consider using the word OPINION in place of FACT, that would be more accurate IMHO

Well,

 

it is just your opinion that crump didn't post facts.

Until now I haven't seen facts from you disproving that.

JtD

JtD

Posted
Posted

Maybe he's expecting people to think. It's pretty darn obvious then.

GOAT-ACEOFACES

GOAT-ACEOFACES

Posted
Posted

Until now I haven't seen facts from you disproving that.

Nor have you seen Crump or anyone post anything that literally says it is depended on density..

 

Therefore what Crump said is opinion by definition, until proven otherwise.

 

Hope that helps!

 

Maybe he's expecting people to think. It's pretty darn obvious then.

So I thought, but clearly some are more biased than others! ;)
Crump

Crump

Posted
Posted

 

 

Nor have you seen Crump or anyone post anything that literally says it is depended on density..

 

?????

 

Obviously density ratio has no meaning for you. 

GOAT-ACEOFACES

GOAT-ACEOFACES

Posted
Posted

?????

 

Obviously density ratio has no meaning for you. 

 

What?

 

I think you confused?

 

Please re-read what I wrote and note that I said no one has posted anything that LITERALLY says it is depended on density..

 

And before you ask, allow me

 

lit·er·al·ly
ˈlidərəlē,ˈlitrəlē/
adverb
 
  1. in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
    "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight across the traffic circle"
    synonyms: exactly, precisely, actually, really, truly; More
     
     
    • informal
      used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.
      "I have received literally thousands of letters"
SKG51_robtek

SKG51_robtek

Posted
Posted

Yep,

it seems crump is also expecting people to think, but then it seems some need a detailed description with colored pictures for something the Naca people thought it was self-explanatory.

NZTyphoon

NZTyphoon

Posted
Posted

Yep,

it seems crump is also expecting people to think, but then it seems some need a detailed description with colored pictures for something the Naca people thought it was self-explanatory.

 

 Actually Crump does expect people to think - as long as it conforms to Crump's beliefs. Otherwise, other people's facts or opinions are dismissed, usually with a condescending counter-argument that alludes to Crump's "superior" understanding of the subject, and the other person's comparative ignorance. Take a look at numerous other forums, going back for years to see how a "discussion" with Crump works.

  • Upvote 1
DD_Arthur

DD_Arthur

Posted
Posted

 Actually Crump does expect people to think - as long as it conforms to Crump's beliefs. Otherwise, other people's facts or opinions are dismissed, usually with a condescending counter-argument that alludes to Crump's "superior" understanding of the subject, and the other person's comparative ignorance. Take a look at numerous other forums, going back for years to see how a "discussion" with Crump works.

 

Actually for the Crump connoisseur this is another vintage thread following the classic Crump formula.   Although Crump doesn't actually have the flight sim installed he is hovering on the forums waiting for an opportunity to display his aeronautical prowess.  A technical point will be raised and Crump is in like Flynn.  There will be a variety of responses from people who mostly don't understand the technical or historical detail being discussed but will either support Crump as his view supports their particular agenda or dismisses him if it goes against theirs.  Thus Crump understands where his audience appeal lies.

 

There are also two other groups of people interested in the discussion.  These are people with a genuine interest or technical expertise in the subject under discussion.  These people are generally engineers, mathematicians - people with a technical/science discipline or professional pilots both civil and military.   I say there are two groups of these people because Crump has been gracing flight sim boards for quite a few years now and group a)  comprise of people like JTD who have run into Crump before and understand what is going to happen and group b) people new to the Crump experience like Unreasonable and PitbullVicious who thoroughly read the charts and documents and then start to ask well meaning direct technical questions that Crump is actually unable to answer.

 

Crump's replies are the usual series of obfuscations, confusions and misunderstandings whilst Crump "learns" from the other contributors as the thread progresses.  In other words, the usual flannel. 

 

Ask him to show you his working out whilst he "works" the math! :rolleyes:  

 

But fear not; somewhere out in the lonely wilds of Shitkicker, Illinois Crump stands ready at a GA field to check the oil, change the plugs and give you a lesson in his Cessna :salute:

  • Upvote 5
GOAT-ACEOFACES

GOAT-ACEOFACES

Posted
Posted

That is best analysis of Crump I think I have ever read.. I am going to have to print this one out, it is a keeper

ACG_Smokejumper

ACG_Smokejumper

Posted
Posted

I haven't said a word about buying anything.

I'm asking because maybe there's anyone here on the forum who knows about planes more than our engineers - this question I find absolutely appropriate. Also the only appropriate way to object against the FM in BOS is to provide actual documents and calculations.

 

 

I have rarely been more upset by a dev comment in my life.

 

As a mining tradesman I have never had more problems than those caused by engineers in any field. They run around like they are infallible when they are far from.

 

REAL HONEST TO GOD FIGHTER PILOTS SAY YOU DONE F'D UP!!!!!

 

 

I have flown real aircraft. Your game introduced me to simming. I now play CloD.

 

 

I will be back when you fix it. Until then good luck and I'll be back later.

unreasonable

unreasonable

Posted
Posted

@DD_Arthur  : very much the conclusions I was coming to as a Crump "virgin", expressed concisely and with wit. I take my hat off to you sir... :salute:  

  • Upvote 1
ACG_Smokejumper

ACG_Smokejumper

Posted
Posted (edited)

Zac, I pledged to buy your next game already because I'm not broke and I want this genre to succeeded. Your company is not generating a good feel for you client base. What the hell is wrong with you guys..?

 

Is it some language barrier or something?

 

 

I flip houses now after mining and listening to constructive criticism keeps food on my plate. You guys need to pull back the emotion and remember this is a business and with the advent of SIM gear much cheaper than it ever was you will be buried by someone eventually if you don't.

 

I will be too if I do not adjust my building practice to what people want to buy. That's business. Grow up.

 

////

 

 

To point out how far from your game I am I just bought a second SSD and windows 7 to remove stutter in a CloD mod. It hates windows 8...... I also bought rudder pedals. I dropped $650 this week to play a 5 year old game.

 

 

I think you guys have a bad attitude and I talk with my wallet and so do the rest of us Westerners. We don't earn Rubles. Look at all that missed money.

 

 

I do not care for the SIM crap politics, you make me the best game and people play it and I am all in and will sell it as hard as I can to all my buddies.

 

 

Get to work.

Edited by CDN-SMOKEJUMPER
ACG_Smokejumper

ACG_Smokejumper

Posted
Posted

On a final note Zak, I actually want you guys to make a BoB game as immersive as CloD.

 

Your game is so promising. Go crush everyone. Give me 100+ a/c dogfights.

 

 

I just want to fly I don't give two [Edited] who made it.

Bearcat

Bearcat

Posted
Posted

Locking.. This thread has run it's course.. I am on my way out the door but will return to revisit it and then maybe reopen it. There is too much in this thread that is editable for me to deal with at the moment.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...