PDA

View Full Version : PF versus Fighter Ace 3.70



SPYDuckDodgers
05-18-2005, 11:29 AM
How does PF compare to FA. I have played FA for
about three years now, and might be looking for a change. Thanks for your response.

Owlsphone
05-18-2005, 11:42 AM
My entire squad plays Fighter Ace, but they are converting over to this game. They like it a lot more I can tell you. The squad is USMC so maybe you know them.

Trust me, this is the premier combat flight simulation.

Bearcat99
05-18-2005, 01:36 PM
I havent fiddled with FA sine FA3... and even then I was heavily into IL2. There is no better WW2 sim on the market. Pay to fly FA? When you can do this for free? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif (Aside from the cost of purchasing the software..) Granted... this product sucks you in and you will wind up wanting to upgrade your hardware just to get it better and better... mind you now.... I was doing fine with my 2500 Barton & 9800 Pro.... but NOooOoOoOOoOoooo I had to have MOoOooOooOooorrree... Heh hehe... thats the major drawback with this sim IMO... it is just TOO frickin good... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

You will see....... C'mon man... give it a shot... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

AerialTarget
05-19-2005, 08:03 PM
Does Fighter Ace have stalls? I mean, real stalls, without spinning, so that the nose drops? You know, where you pull back too hard, but instead of a wing instantly dropping, the nose just dips like you pushed forward on the stick?

I'm sorry if I seem like I'm stressing what realistic stalls should be like, but everyone here seems to think that all stalls should be spins. I blame Oleg for this, but they are also to blame for not doing the slightest bit of research on the basics of flight. And they call themselves warbird fanatics.

Owlsphone
05-19-2005, 08:09 PM
AerialTarget, you sound like you are speaking of stalls from general aviation experience.

High performance fighters are a totally different story and they will spin on you. This isn't a controlled stall in a cessna during slow flight.

JunkoIfurita
05-20-2005, 06:00 AM
AerialTarget, if you want to see that the game engine does manage stalls well - notice that you can duplicate the kind of controlled stall you're referring too in a slow, high lift aircraft such as the D3A1 Val (yep, the same one that somebody else in a recent thread was claiming to be unstallable).

Ease back on the throttle, pull back on the stick, and when she reaches the critical angle of attack, the nose will drop into a controlled stall. Over-compensate and, yes, the wing will drop (not into a spin...the Val is a very forgiving bird), but you can hold her in a controlled stall for quite a while if you're careful.

I'm not saying the Flight Model is perfect (lets face it, dedicated military simulators with many times the available processing power of the average home PC STILL have imperfect flight models. Any home simulator is only at best a very good approximation of the calculations), but it's not so simple that 'every stall is just a spin'.

As Owlsphone says, high speed, high performance prop fighters spin rather than stall. Speed is the key to that, and compressibility becomes an issue also.

I've got a friend who flies Storch's regularly for aerial cattle mustering in Northern Queensland. To 'show off' this game to him, I got him flying a WWII era Storch (they've barely changed in 70 years) on externals in IL2, and he reckons if it's not a dead on flight model, it's a pretty close approximation. He had the little thing stalling, STOL, dipping and rolling much in the way I've seen him manage over the herd. Pity there's no real wind in Sturmovik yet (BoB, I guess), or he'd have thing hovering against the wind.

----

VW-IceFire
05-20-2005, 07:55 AM
Rumors say PF 4.0's stalls will be much more impressive in their accuracy. We'll see!

Thats neat about the Storch. Amazing little plane to be sure and interesting to see how close it was...seeing as its not even a flyable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Adlerangriff
05-20-2005, 09:12 AM
Realistic wind would be amazing.

Pilot fatigue would be equally fantastic.

major_setback
05-20-2005, 02:18 PM
HrrmmmHrrrmmmmm!!

To get back to the original question. Yes FB/PF is very good. Try it, buy it, fly it!!

(Sorry, I have no online experience with it.)


To quote Bearcat:

"this sim IMO... it is just TOO frickin good... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif "

...Though I think he forgot to mention the http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif and also watch out for plenty of http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Buy! Bye!

VELCRO_FLY
05-20-2005, 05:06 PM
I flew FA, for a short time, and it was okay. I had fun with it, but just didn't want to come up with the monthly fee to play online. I had some friends at work talk me into flying this and I'm addicted! IMO there is no comparison between the two. IL2/PF/FB etc, etc is the BEST WWII sim out there. Try it and you will not go back to FA. Come on over to the dark side of the force http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

AerialTarget
05-22-2005, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by Owlsphone:
AerialTarget, you sound like you are speaking of stalls from general aviation experience.

High performance fighters are a totally different story and they will spin on you. This isn't a controlled stall in a cessna during slow flight.

I am speaking of stalls from general aviation experience. In this, you are correct.

However, your next statement is absolutely false! I cannot believe that so many people believe this simply because flight "simulators" portray things this way. One viewing of the official United States Army Air Force training videos will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that warbirds do stall without spinning.

These videos, available for free on the internet, should be required watching for everyone who joins this forum, and are essential to anyone who claims to be serious about World War Two aviation.

I'm quite sick of misinformation, caused by faulty flight "simulators," being spread by people who have not done any research on the subject.

EnGaurde
05-22-2005, 01:39 AM
I'm quite sick of misinformation, caused by faulty flight "simulators," being spread by people who have not done any research on the subject.

i became somewhat tired of the legion, upon legion of experts that sneer at efforts to recreate flight for those of us that dont fly, even in such a limited factor.

are we forgetting something about these sims? As in theyre horribly limited in countless ways, but some of us can allow for that and just get on with it?

you may be a flyer aerial, but you fall victim to your own dispersions in claimng you actually know how these aircraft flew, and stalled etc. Im guessing you dont, you didnt fly the daamn things themselves, and so in the end its also you making a "best guess" in that maddoxs effort was actually wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

I read somewhere the stall characteristics in Russian p39s were fixed in earlier models. How, I dont know, but that tells me there was no hard and fast clinical precision about any aircrafts flight characteristics, probably why the used the word tendencies: "... tendency to spin at however so many feet, tendency to bounce on landing etc etc"

i agree with you in that some aspects can be improved, not just stalls. That is, after all the signature of the il2 series: improvement.

but you irritate me immensely with your withering arrogance and i know better than everyone attitude. Its ridiculous you base your disdain on what youve seen in a 60 or so yr old video, rather than what you precisely seat of the pants know about these aircraft in question.

frankly sport, you dont know fer shure either. You just think you do due to general flying experience? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Asgeir_Strips
05-22-2005, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Rumors say PF 4.0's stalls will be much more impressive in their accuracy. We'll see!

Thats neat about the Storch. Amazing little plane to be sure and interesting to see how close it was...seeing as its not even a flyable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I remember when i played CFS2, I downloaded the Fi-156 (correct name?) Storch and i Used to do carrier landings with that plane.. it was just like a Harrier, i swear, i landed straight down on the deck! Same goes with the stinson L5. I doubt that the FM of CFS2 was good at all, but it was great fun!

I also used to practice carrier landings with the planes, so when i finally tried PF for the first time, i didn't have problems with Carrier ops at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Now, every plane is really easy to land. (those with an arresting hook that is, and the Ki43 oscar) even the corsair!

I also use the Curved Approach when im landing on carriers. Thats the key to safe landings!

RogueRunner
05-22-2005, 09:07 AM
AerialTarget,

I think you are confusing accelerated stalls with a normal power off stall. Accelerated stalls is where you fly at speed and yank the stick pick. The elevator pushes the wing past it's critical AoA and the wing stall. In most cases this will result in a spin due to P factor and other factors.

In a power off stall like when landing in IL2, although it's not perfect, does not mean instant spin. In most aircraft in Il2 it will drop a wing, but slowly, as it should and with ample warning.

In real life the C172 will just drop it's nose in a power off stall. The Cherokees 235 that I sometimes fly drops a wing when it stalls (note: this is actually not common in Cherokees but this one does http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

With a warbird it can be so that it would drop a wing when it stalls or simply mushes like a 172. I wouldn't know and so would for everyone else on this board except a very few I would imagine!

Thing is in slow speed stalls in IL2 most fighters drops a wing but won't spin unless you let that wing continue to drop!Then it will most definitely develop into a spin! The worst thing you can do is to try to pickup the low wing with ailerons, this help to aggrevate the spin. Only solution is to get wings level with rudder, get the nose low and let the speed built and pull out of the dive!

SPYDuckDodgers
05-22-2005, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by SPYDuckDodgers:
How does PF compare to FA. I have played FA for
about three years now, and might be looking for a change. Thanks for your response.

Thanks for the input gentlemen. I should be on
your wing or your six soon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AerialTarget
05-22-2005, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by RogueRunner:
stalls is where you fly at speed and yank the stick pick. The elevator pushes the wing past it's critical AoA and the wing stall. In most cases this will result in a spin due to P factor and other factors.

In a power off stall like when landing in IL2, although it's not perfect, does not mean instant spin. In most aircraft in Il2 it will drop a wing, but slowly, as it should and with ample warning.

With a warbird it can be so that it would drop a wing when it stalls or simply mushes like a 172. I wouldn't know and so would for everyone else on this board except a very few I would imagine!

You make a good point; I've neither experienced nor seen an accelerated stall. However, I do know from reading official training manuals that at least several of the United States aircraft in the game could pull an accelerated stall without spinning. The P-38 Lightning, in particular, was deliberately stalled like this in combat by skilled pilots. Of course, the plane would need to be coordinated when this occurred!

However, in IL-2, even slow stalls always cause a spin. Since the definition of a spin is loss of lift (stall) on only one wing, as soon as the wing starts to drop, you're spinning. The fact that you have only spun a few degrees and that you can recover from it instantly by simply releasing the controls does not make it not a spin.

It's simply not possible to stall and have the nose drop without dipping a wing in any plane, at any speed, any altitude, and in either configuration (clean or dirty). And this is very wrong.

RogueRunner
05-23-2005, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:

However, in IL-2, even slow stalls always cause a spin. Since the definition of a spin is loss of lift (stall) on only one wing, as soon as the wing starts to drop, you're spinning.

The fact that you have only spun a few degrees and that you can recover from it instantly by simply releasing the controls does not make it not a spin.

Is called an insuppient spin and trust me, it's the way it works in real life too! If a plane drops a wing when it stalls and you don't catch it you will enter a spin very soon after that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I once tried a power off stall in a Beech Baron 58 and the plane was only mushing and not enter the stall completely. I got fed up and pulled the stick into my stomach. We were on our roof 2 seconds later and going earthwards very rapidly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif




It's simply not possible to stall and have the nose drop without dipping a wing in any plane, at any speed, any altitude, and in either configuration (clean or dirty). And this is very wrong.

This the same for the high wing planes in IL2 too? A high wing is more stable than a low wing and therefore only tends to mush and drop a nose in the stall. Low wings again are very particular about keeping the ball in the middle and will punish you if you don't! See my reply above about the baron http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AerialTarget
05-23-2005, 04:13 AM
See my thread, "Stalls (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/2591046323)," complete with videos.

JFC_Woody
05-23-2005, 07:17 AM
before you start ****ging a game off, try actually learning how to fly 1st, 5 minutes after reading this, i was able to put the exact P-47 in your "video" into the same type of stall as long as my altitude would allow, visable here... http://www.vps.pa.btinternet.co.uk/23-05-05_12-52-08.jpg

i'll try to upload a video of it as soon as i can be arsed to find the track, you seem to think the plane has to be dropping vertically to be in a stall? does it look like those wings are generating lift?

DIRTY-MAC
05-23-2005, 12:41 PM
there is no problem stalling a plane without getting in to a spin, I use to do it alot
when trying out the highest climb angle of a fighter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

quiet_man
05-23-2005, 01:34 PM
when you activate wingtip smoke, you can see the plane "dropping"

quiet_man

AerialTarget
05-24-2005, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by JFC_Woody:
before you start ****ging a game off, try actually learning how to fly 1st, 5 minutes after reading this, i was able to put the exact P-47 in your "video" into the same type of stall as long as my altitude would allow, visable here... http://www.vps.pa.btinternet.co.uk/23-05-05_12-52-08.jpg

i'll try to upload a video of it as soon as i can be arsed to find the track, you seem to think the plane has to be dropping vertically to be in a stall? does it look like those wings are generating lift?

Son, that's not a stall. Firstly, those wings are indeed generating lift. If they weren't, your nose (or, in the game and in some aircraft in real life, your wing) would be dropping. Secondly, you are losing altitude not because you are in a stall (which you are not), but because you are not holding your nose high enough to maintain altitude at your present airspeed. And you're well above the stall speed (even the game's unrealistically high one).

You're not in a stall, because you can still pull the nose up further. If you were in a stall, this would not be the case. Do you really think that there are two stall speeds, one for the thing you are calling a stall and then another, even slower, for when the wing drops?

In a straight and level slow stall, you should not be losing any altitude until the nose (or wing) drops in the stall. Hold the stick back as far as necessary to maintain altitude. You can keep your altitude at any airspeed until the nose (or wing) drops.

I'll tell you what, since it's clear to me that you will not believe that what I say is true. You go find a real life pilot, and show him the track, and ask him if that's a stall. He'll tell you that it is not. Even Oleg will tell you that it isn't a stall.

Don't you get it yet? You have no clue what you are talking about. I've studied this stuff since before I was potty trained. I have done some of this stuff in real aircraft. I have been taught by real flight instructors. I played this game since the original IL-2 and can, in the game, perform that manuever that you're doing in the picture for as long as I want. But it's not a stall.

JFC_Woody
05-24-2005, 11:18 AM
If this game is truely so sh*t, why dont you just put it in CD rack, and go annoy some other forum, im sure i speak for everyone when i say your posts are nothing but somewhat humourous, and mildly annoying. Far as i can see, theres alot more things this game has done right, than it has done wrong, and thats good enough for me. So go back and sit in ur cardboard box with wings and have mummy push you round the lounge for a while doing "propper stalls", cos here, ur just sounding like a little kid who cant shoot anyone down, so you come up with the amazing idea to blame the sim.

S!

AerialTarget
05-24-2005, 01:41 PM
I did put it in the disk rack for over a year. However, there is no competition, and I'd like to fly warbirds, or some representation thereof. That does not mean that this is a good approximation of aerial combat.

The fact that you are content with mediocrity does not mean that everyone should be. Clearly you are not as interested in aviation as some people. Humorous and annoying my posts may be, but they are far more informed than ninety five percent of the other posts here.

I don't appreciate your uninformed judgement of my simulated flying skills. People that flew with me before I left the game will tell you that I am not the best pilot, but I am a good one. My displeasure with the game is not resulting from the fact that it is too hard; indeed, in many areas it is too easy. My beef is that it is unrealistic.

I believe that flying is the most enjoyable thing that one can ever do. And I want simulations to come as close as possible to replicating real flight.

III-JG27_DV8
05-24-2005, 02:17 PM
In a straight and level slow stall, you should not be losing any altitude until the nose (or wing) drops in the stall.

Right.......NOT!

Go back to flight school 1-0-1.....please.

AerialTarget
05-24-2005, 03:43 PM
You go back to flight school. Rather, go to flight school. You were obviously never there.

If you're not stalling, then you are able to maintain altitude. I could. You are never "forced" to lose altitude unless you are stalled; any time you are losing altitude before the stall, it's because you are not pulling back hard enough.

If you don't have a clue what you're talking about, don't talk! It's okay to throw in an educated opinion, even if you are wrong, but inexperienced and uneducated balogna thrown forth because you feel it's right (mostly because of faulty flight "simulators") is foolish.

JFC_Woody
05-24-2005, 08:07 PM
If you don't have a clue what you're talking about, don't talk!


^^^ and this is comming from YOU?! ROFL
i'm sry, ive seen and heard plenty of REAL pilots saying this sim isnt perfect, but isnt bad either, so maybe you should get a clue and get a life, and i'd like to see you flying as slow as an aircraft physically can, without losing alt, i think you should switch sim's to "sim cropduster".

And dont say im not enthusiastic about somethin just cos i care more for flyin it than moaning about it, idiot

AerialTarget
05-24-2005, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by JFC_Woody:
i'd like to see you flying as slow as an aircraft physically can, without losing alt, i think you should switch sim's to "sim cropduster".

Flying as slow as an aircraft physically can without losing altitude is no big deal. It's the normal prelude to a slow stall! I've done it in real life, with ease. The only time you can't keep your altitude is the moment of the stall! Can't you get that through your head yet? The simulator doesn't model stalls without wing dip (yet).

If you're losing altitude and you're not stalling, then pull the stick back until you either stop losing altitude or stall! If you keep your nose high enough, you won't lose any altitude. When you reach your stall speed, you stall. It's very, very simple. As I said, I've done it in real life; it's much, much easier than landing a plane; it's nearly as basic as learning how to turn, and much more basic than, say, a loop.

I didn't mean to imply that you have no enthusiasm for the game; it's obvious you have a great abundance of that. Rather, you have no interest in real flying. You have absolutely no clue about the basics of flight, and are making ridiculous statements about a subject which you have not even spent ten minutes researching.

Moreover, you are insulting someone who has done much reading, watched many hours of videos, and even has limited hands-on experience, for trying to tell you how it really works. If you're interested in learning, then I'll be glad to assist. If you can't listen to me because of my attitude, then ask a real flight instructor. If, however, you want to keep your colossal misimpressions because they are dear to you, then by all means do so. Few are impressed by intentional ignorance.

Here (http://users.adelphia.net/~j.r.engdahl/josh/Slow%20Stall.TRK) is a track demonstrating what I was talking about before I was scoffed at by this young man. It's much easier to do in real life, by the way, because of trim. Trim doesn't transfer well to simulators.

Supr
05-25-2005, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Does Fighter Ace have stalls? I mean, real stalls, without spinning, so that the nose drops? You know, where you pull back too hard, but instead of a wing instantly dropping, the nose just dips like you pushed forward on the stick?

I'm sorry if I seem like I'm stressing what realistic stalls should be like, but everyone here seems to think that all stalls should be spins. I blame Oleg for this, but they are also to blame for not doing the slightest bit of research on the basics of flight. And they call themselves warbird fanatics.

lol, didn't oleg built fighter jets before he built games? So how about you?

msalama
05-25-2005, 01:48 PM
No, sorry. Our much-maligned friend AerialTarget seems to be right about this one.

I've just spent an hour or so testing engine-off stalls in the sim, and _every_single_ plane I tested, both single- and dual-engined, stalled asymmetrically, i.e. one wing sooner than the other (usually the left one 1st). And this regardless of any control inputs applied (and with zero p-factor and prop torque too, mind you).

So yep, our current stall modelling seems to be incomplete and/or incorrect!

III-JG27_DV8
05-25-2005, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
You go back to flight school. Rather, go to flight school. You were obviously never there.

If you're not stalling, then you are able to maintain altitude. I could. You are never "forced" to lose altitude unless you are stalled; any time you are losing altitude before the stall, it's because you are not pulling back hard enough.

If you don't have a clue what you're talking about, don't talk! It's okay to throw in an educated opinion, even if you are wrong, but inexperienced and uneducated balogna thrown forth because you feel it's right (mostly because of faulty flight "simulators") is foolish.

In your words

"In a straight and level slow STALL, you should not be losing ANY ALTITUDE..."

And then you say

"If you're not STALLING, then you are able to maintain altitude. I could. You are never "forced" to lose altitude unless you are stalled;"

and you top yourself off by telling me

"If you don't have a clue what you're talking about, don't talk!"

LOL

Have a nice day.

crazyivan1970
05-25-2005, 04:58 PM
I went from FA1.0 to FA3.0 - 4 years in FA skies me thinks. It was all fun, tons of it actually... until IL2 demo came out and i was sold. FA will never match IL-2 series, probably by any features...except one. Multiplayer is better IMO, even that it`s pay per play... But i got two words for you: Territoral Combat. I wish IL2 had something like that. Hopefully it will http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

actionhank1786
05-25-2005, 05:25 PM
Stay on topic guys, and save the stall talk for 4.0. Then let everyone decide, this thread's been hijacked like a poor plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

OldMan____
05-25-2005, 05:25 PM
Why the hell discuss about how good a stall is? If you stall you are going to increase your "die" chance anyway in combat. So simply do NOT ENTER INTO A STALL. So you won´t have to worry of how it bahaves. I think I don´t get into a stall for many months and I don´t miss them.

AerialTarget
05-25-2005, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by III-JG27_DV8:
In your words

"In a straight and level slow STALL, you should not be losing ANY ALTITUDE..."

And then you say

"If you're not STALLING, then you are able to maintain altitude. I could. You are never "forced" to lose altitude unless you are stalled;"

That is not what I said! I said, "In a straight and level slow stall, you should not be losing any altitude until the nose (or wing) drops in the stall." I did not say, "In a straight and level slow stall, you should not be losing any altitude," end of statement.

While I probably should have used the phrase "with a straight and level slow stall" instead of "in a straight and level slow stall," the other part of the sentence, immediately following the phrase, makes it very, very clear what I am saying. You deliberately misquoted me by chopping off the end of my statement to make it look like I was saying the very opposite of what I was saying.

You are a liar. You clearly do not care to find out the truth about this matter, choosing rather to twist words. Not only are you maligning someone who does have a good idea of what goes on in a stall, and not only do you have no clue what goes on in a stall, but you are also a deceiver (albiet not a very good one).

AerialTarget
05-25-2005, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
Why the hell discuss about how good a stall is? If you stall you are going to increase your "die" chance anyway in combat. So simply do NOT ENTER INTO A STALL. So you won´t have to worry of how it bahaves. I think I don´t get into a stall for many months and I don´t miss them.

Oldman, that is a very bad argument. By that logic, a bug that caused your engine to turn off whenever an enemy got on your tail would not be a big deal, because having an enemy get on your tail increases your chance of death anyway. So simply do not let an enemy get on your tail! You won't have to worry how your engine quits when the enemy is on your tail.

Do you see how ridiculous that logic is? A stall is a very real thing that pilots really had to worry about. It is a very basic part of flight, like landing, and is important. In addition, stalls actually could be and were used in combat by good pilots to gain an edge on the enemy.

Old_Canuck
05-26-2005, 12:41 AM
SPYDuckDodgers, you registered on my birthday May 16. This has nothing to do with the question you asked but then neither does a lot of the other replies.

Jex_TG
05-26-2005, 05:27 AM
Aerial:

Hopefully when the 4.0 patch comes out (and this is now imminent), we'll see a better flight model. As flight models go, IL2 series may not be accurate, but there isn't much that is better out there if any. Complex flight models = cpu hogging. So you can only put so much into a flight model before you start to see a performance loss.

Oleg may well be aware that the stall characteristics are not correct, but as a programmer you use what you can.

You say that people here are talking rubbish, and I agree with you that some are - but you seem to fail to appreciate the art of programming and compiling. Whilst you moan about peoples lack of understanding of flight characteristics, you seem to deny the existance of what it takes to code in a flight model, and what effect that has on cpu power. In other words, you are almost as guilty of ignorance as those around you lol.

4.0 will see the new BOB flight model introduced. It still may not be perfect but that i'm afraid is tough luck. Building a plane to fly over land is in some respects a lot easier than building a plane to fly in a virtual world. In real life - God (or chance) has already added the physics engine - in a sim, that has to be modelled. That is highly complicated.

I think Oleg and crew have done a great job so far. As PC power accelerates, we'll see better flight models. At present though, there is only so much you can fit in.

III-JG27_DV8
05-26-2005, 09:39 AM
This will be my last attempt at correcting your idiocy....

This whole time you've gripped about the fact that a plane should not be losing alt if you are NOT stalled AND you should lose alt when you are stalled.

With this in mind, look at what you've said:

"In a straight and level slow stall, you should not be losing any altitude until the nose (or wing) drops in the stall."

Here you are clearly stating you are in a stall yet you continue on with the statement that you should not be losing any altitude with one condition, nose (or wing) drop.

What the are you trying to say? A stall is a stall only when YOU define it?

Dude, you're not too bright up stairs are you?

AerialTarget
05-26-2005, 02:29 PM
I already addressed that one. I grow weary of this. "In a straight and level slow stall" should have been "in the case of a straight and level slow stall." The part immediately following it, "nose drops in the stall" should have made that very clear, as well as my other posts which say the same thing.

Did you really think I was contradicting myself with that one questionable statement? If I've said something a dozen times, and then say something worded badly that can possibly interpreted as the oppostie, then why did you interpret it that way, especially when the inverse was also possible?

Incidentally, I failed to make another thing clear; I am talking about warbirds. Modern fighter jets have different performance characteristics; some of them have no nose drop at all, but are designed to fall flat like a manhole cover.

FoolTrottel
05-26-2005, 03:02 PM
AerialTarget,

You've already made yer point(s) here: Stalls And Spins (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2321056323/r/2321056323#2321056323) in GD.

Please, don't jump in, whenever you think you see a chance ...

(And, No I did not watch the movies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif I'm just havin' fun without 'm)


__________________
Actually, however, the object isn't to bail out of your ship, but to make the other fellow bail out of his!

Now I know what yer after... keep on going, till ya get yer target....
Well, let me help you: YER RIGHT! (About them stalls and spins... now move along... to help ya, I'll just Bump yer "Stalls and Spins" thread in GD! Oh, and if you want me, I can bump yer Stalls (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/2591046323))thread if PF-Forum as well!

EDIT: Oops.... I didn't have to bump the Stalls and Spins, it was already on top! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Have Fun!