Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ala13_ManOWar

  1. ... Tampoco es que todo sea de color de rosa en DCS, pero si me pusiese a criticar....mas de 2 años para desarrollar un mapa me parece excesivo tenga la calidad y el tamaño que tenga;Ahora bien si lo juntas con actualizar el motor grafico tambien...pues hay lo teneis. ...
    Hombre, te aseguro que yo el primero querría tener todo este contenido y más para mañana, pero este tipo de módulos con esta calidad está claro que no pueden tardar poco en salir, para nuestra desgracia por supuesto.


    El caso del mapa de Nevada hay que tener en cuenta que era un mapa que comenzó un third party, que iba a salir hace tiempo para el A-10 y demás. Y no recuerdo la historia completa, pero el caso es que el third party se calló como ya ha pasado varias veces en la historia de DCS, con el consiguiente problema para ED de tener que hacerse cargo del proyecto personalmente para cumplir con lo prometido por el third party. Como además se ha juntado el tema del motor gráfico nuevo, que tuvieron que hacer después de comprobar que las pretensiones del third party eran irrealizables en el motor actual, pues más curro. Y una vez metidos en faena y para que el mapa fuese completamente compatible con el motor nuevo se rehizo desde cero. O sea curro cuadruplicado que ED no esperaba tener. Si a eso le unimos toda la historia de DCS por el camino, otros third parties que también se han caído obligando a ED a hacerse cargo, problemas de desarrollo para un motor gráfico completamente nuevo, y eso a la vez de llevar adelante sus propios proyectos... La verdad es que por menos se han ido al traste otros desarrollos. Mira si no el fiasco de CloD después de 6 años de desarrollo.


    Ojalá pronto sepamos algo y empecemos a ver la luz al final del tunel (aunque la avalancha de módulos del final de 2014 y principio de 2015 también ayuda, ¿no? :thumbup:). Pero vamos que aunque lo querría para ayer, como todo el mundo, entiendo que es imposible que todo lo que están haciendo aparezca en poco tiempo. Por las noticias pienso que este año será el año :pilotfly:, que no quiere decir que no llevemos ya lo nuestro esperando vamos, jaja.



  2. Yourself have the answer mate :).


    I asked at the very beginning of this thread to please not post 'this is how you're supposted to to it' advice. I have read numerouts thread about 'how you are supposed to do it'.
    Didn't mean that mate, I just tried to show some examples you probably experienced.



    This thread askes the question, 'does the program represent physical reality?' or do I misunderstand the way the tail wheel functions, and if so, what do I misunderstand.
    I'm have nothing to do with ED staff, but I clearly see P-51 model representing quite well what I can know myself. So I would say yes it is modelled, and the best model out there I know in a simulator, really close to the real thing.




    The summery of arguments I've read are saying that it requires and enourmous force to straighten the 'unlocked' tail wheel and claim this is supported by physics. This is not the case, not in the least. Stearing the aircraft with the tail wheel works on the principal of 'wheel and axel' the aircraft being the wheel and the center-point of the main-wheels the axis around which it turns.

    THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: The aircraft is being put into a rotation around the centerpoint of its main-wheels by the tail wheel.


    Think this through, imagine you are standing at the tailsection of the aircraft just to the outside of the left elivator. How hard do you have to push on the elivator toward the tail rudder to put the aircraft into rotation?


    This is the force the game is demonstraighting being necessary to straighten the tail wheel.

    That's it, even being a castoring wheel you need more force to straighten that you seems to think. In your experiment, well I have not taxi by hand a real P-51 but I have done many times other aircraft, and a rotated wheel standing on ground is very difficult, almost impossible, to straighten by your hand. That's why you see those long tow bars used to steer and taxi aircraft on ground, tricycle or tail wheels. With a tow bar you can move the wheel just fine because the "lever" effect. As said, unlocked doesn't means you can move it like a feather. And a tail dragger, even more one like P-51 with its weight standing over the tail wheel, I can guess (and of course it's a guess) it's even harder to move than usual GA I can know.



  3. Interesting, that does contradict the manual that is out there...
    Indeed, but they are modern and valuable aircraft with pilots not crazy enough to lower flaps in combat lol.gif so it can be logical they set that way as a warning. The problem with warbirds like those (even they aren't German Meserschmitt...) is a detail like that says anything about the real deal :(.



  4. I'll make my try, back on first topic :).


    ... A free castoring wheel should straighten on the aircraft being put into motion and not affect the direction of travel of the aircraft. ...
    The problem is IMHO you are starting from a mistaken statement. A free castoring wheel in an aircraft is under a lot of weight, so not completely "free", and usually wheel just keep the last direction it was put in. A stopped aircraft with a wheel not looking straight will start moving the direction the wheel is looking at for quite a while even you stepping opposite pedal (that's why you usually want to straighten the wheel before taxi, RL I mean). That happens even in tricycle gear aircraft like C152... so if you are flying a high powered and weighted tail wheel fighter I wouldn't expect anything less. The only way to operate is anticipate when you know how it works. RL C152 indeed isn't easy to taxi at first just because the castoring wheel, until you realize how much to anticipate, then it's a piece of cake. P-51 will be much harder being a tail wheel like every tail wheel.


    I give you an example, you entered and line up runway, but unlocked wheel for the turn. Then you lock again (try to) pulling back your stick, but you stopped right ended the turn. When you apply throttle the first move forward of the aircraft will be always the last direction your wheel was left, and usually even the wheel is still unlocked. That's because 'free' doesn't means it's like a windmill, free means wheel will keep faced where it stopped and lasts a while to reach a certain position being 'free', sometimes quite a while.




    But when I'm turning a curve in the parking area of some airfield and release the tail rudder to centerline, the aircraft does not stop turning along a curve. This makes no sense to me! Even when I push the tail rudder in the opposite direction, the aircraft continues to turn in the original direction of turn.

    Yes, aircraft will straighten it's path... with time, even 'a lot of time' if you're looking it to be instantly, so you've to react sooner if you look for your straight line. What you're describing in the other hand are a direct controlled wheel, then of course you center pedals and get a straight line instantly but this isn't our case. Castoring wheels are a bit mad.



    And a last thought, not related to castoring wheel but related to taxi. Another mistaken statement, you are thinking about a tail wheel running straight when you apply power... but that's not true, a tail wheel will always want to go any way but straight (because CG as mentioned sooner), that's why you need a lock, so why should it straighten its path so easily when you release pedal? You always will have to 'fight' a bit, or a lot, to get your straight line.



  5. That how I understand it works right now too but Yo-Yo made a statement along the lines of the system being automated in such a way that you could only set the temperature within a certain range and if the temp moved outside that range it would go fully automatic to bring the temp back into that range.
    What I understand with that is you can set it whatever you want, for example closed configuration, and if temperature goes further than regular then, even with your setting, automation makes it go beyond to cool it again. Logics sais if you set full opened cowl flaps and for example full throttle if temperature goes too high any automatic thing can change that so you already are full opened.


    Also, that bypass won't work if temperatures goes too much high too quick and you have a closed setting, in P-51 it also happens, just thermocouple (I think that's its English name) can't react fast enough opening cowl flaps in time and then you break engine. And it happens exactly that way.


    From my experience playing with temperature settings it works quite fine, but in combat and take-off if you want to be free of work it's better just to fully open it. But that doesn't means you don't check temperatures at all, you can work like that a limited time and everytime I have broken an engine it was my failure checking gauges or a bad move, like full throttle too much time while climbing so not enough air hits radiator or any similar situations.



  6. I don't really understand completely, but from my experience and the handbook instructions cowl flaps are an automated system but you can "select the temperature" you want them to keep, or as Elmo said maximum opening. Keeping full throttle apart, you can open and close it and water coolant temperature changes almost instantly (that's your temperature selection), oil temperature (we can assume that as engine temperature) changes a bit slower but there is it. Fully opening cowl flaps you always have a "cold" engine (and it's supposed to be a bad thing, but I have been unable to break it that way). In full throttle even "full opened" cowl flaps (or lowest temperature selection) will keep your engine refrigerated only for a time of course. You can "fully open" cowl flaps since take-off all the time and forget about it, it'll keep you cold even at full throttle for the longest time without being constantly checking temperature and settings.



  7. As others noted, it was not the only shameless case



    Only parts the changed were the parts they were not capable of making, for example, the skin itself was something they were not capable of reproducing, which resulted in them using a thicker skin, which added more weight



    Im sure there was more to it than that



    Agreed, and really no need to discuss it any further, in that it is what it is. Discussing it further will not change the facts of it.



    True, but, one would not expect this from an allied country.. One that you just spend years 'giving' them the means via the lend lease program to stay alive



    As noted above, not 'everything'

    Ok, Ok, I'll not discuss anything more. But yours is the exact 'point' I was commenting about, and that's simply not so true :thumbup:.



  8. As i though that someting is still not right with load and ultimate G limit.


    Good that we will see fixes here.

    And there is something, obviously, but still as Jcomm and Sithspawn said at thread start, it all depends on how you behave with the controls. I don't break anything also and really I can't understand what you guys do to break so much things all the time.



    Whatever, even still waiting for an even more refined final version I'm with Jcomm first state, 109 flies quite good now...



  9. Which was not the case with the B-29..


    The Russian's did not pay any licensing fee, patent royalties, etc to make 'it'


    That does equate to 'copying it'.. Also known as 'stealing it' IMHO

    And that's why I said, AFAIK, Tu-4 was the only clear and shameless case where USSR literally copied a thing almost identical to original because USA didn't wanted to sell them a build licence :smilewink:.



    About that being 'stealing' or not, copyright ethics and so, I think this is not the place to discuss. But some countries doesn't have those copyright laws, they 'copy' things all the time since ever, and nobody cares or blame them :thumbup:. So it's always funny to see how 25 years after USSR fall people still say the old motto "Russian copies" while actually they paid their licenses for everything.



  10. The Russians copied alot of things, not just the B-29. You can start with the sidewinder. Or the suspension on the T-34.
    Yeah, but don't confuse use a same technology to literally "copy". Russia paid their licences to build things, that isn't "copy" anything is just what everybody does around the world. USA also "copied" things from Russia and anybody say "the USA copy".



  11. For those that do not know, the TU-4 is the Soviet Clone of the B-29's that we sold them through the lend/lease act of WW2. They also recieved B-25's, and C-47's among other hardware.
    AFAIK indeed Tu-4 was the only aircraft shamelessly copied by Russians because USA didn't wanted to sell the licence to build it, so Russia decided to go hard just to demonstrate they could do it. But that "Russian copy" sentence is so typical we always forget they paid their licences to build things like everyone.



  12. Hombre, peticiones como tal no puedo aceptar porque no tengo tiempo como para comprometerme. Pero como comprenderás lo tenía en mente :smilewink:. Veremos.


    I can't accept formal requests because I have no time. But I was thinking about it :smilewink:. We'll see.



  13. Already uploaded and awaiting check.



    Republic of Korea Air Force skin for F-51D belonging to Maj. Dean Hess who helped building the South Korean Air Force. Made upon a mate request.





    Some info here.













    • Like 1
  • Create New...