Jump to content

Narushima

Members
  • Posts

    198
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Narushima

  1. Did any one of you claiming the Dora climbs too fast even bothered to check the weight of the DCS Dora?
  2. DCS does model aeroelasticity.
  3. Could be a problem with the new Nvidia drivers. Try an older driver and see if it helps.
  4. A complete manual on LW munitions used during 1936-1945 can be found here: http://www.lexpev.nl/downloads/handbuchderflugzeugbordwaffenmunition19361945.pdf
  5. Eh, you're right. Was looking at the wrong blueprint. Still, it needed air to cool down the coolant itself.
  6. The Dora used the same radiator fan design as the Antons, meaning it was pretty efficient even at low speeds, and did not require as much air speed to keep the engine cool as contemporary prop fighters. The radiator fans would spin with the prop (at different gear though), which created a vacuum in front of the engine, which sucked cool air in. This came at a cost of engine power. When air speed was 0, the fans would take up about 50HP from the engine, with the engine load decreasing as speeds went up, until the engine was no longer loaded at around 300-350 km/h. That said, I've yet to bust a single engine with cooling flaps opened to over 75%. If you keep it on automatic then they won't adjust fast enough. You have to open them manually prior to the fight.
  7. A pendulum never get's close to the speeds aircraft do. It never approaches terminal velocity. This man explains it perfectly: Watch the video and all shall become clear :)
  8. It was a joke :smilewink:
  9. Which is wrong. Il-2 was notoriusly bad at this. In that game a Hurricane could zoom with a Dora. It was as if weight was a non factor in diving and zoom climbing in that game. Anyway, it's simple physics. More mass = more energy. You know E=MC^2 and all that. This is precisely what Robert S. Johnson demonstrated in mock combat against a Spitfire IX in his P-47 The Spitfire had a decisive power loading advantage, yet he was completely unable to follow the Jug in a zoom or a dive.
  10. Only if that P-51 was flying at 8000lb, otherwise, no. The P-51 is heavier and aerodynamically cleaner and should have little problems in out-diving and out-zooming the 109 at higher speeds. At lower speeds, the 109's superior acceleration would of course give it better initial dive acceleration, but only until about 350-400 km/h. Same for zooming ability.
  11. Both the P-51 and the Dora have a huge advantage against the K-4. Better dive/zoom performance and better top speed at SL. This means that they can disengage the fight at will, and re-engage when they have the energy advantage. And if the K-4 pilot is foolish enough to follow them in a dive, then he has already lost.
  12. I'm not being defensive. I asked you a legitimate question. I would like to find out why there's such a big discrepancy between AI damage models between different people. I would like to know it it's because of how people perceive the damage model of if there's an actual difference on how damage is applied on different computers.
  13. Define fine. Does fine mean "historically correct" or does fine mean "good enough for me"? Also, I have a strong suspicion that the damage model is somehow linked to the skill of the AI pilot. I've noticed that when I put it on the easiest setting they tend to go down faster. Could just be placebo though, and I have no way of actually testing this, so without a dev confirmation it's just a theory. EDIT: Could also be that damage is applied differently depending on hardware, maybe something like per frame calculations. Would explain some things.
  14. Yes, it is much more realistic. Now that tells you a thing or two about the AI damage model. And btw, most of the time the AI goes down in a big fireball anyway, even without the trigger.
  15. You can make a trigger that makes the AI plane explode after a certain damage threshold. Makes it much more realistic. Check it out in the mission editor.
  16. I thought ED's "soon" was ~6 months...
  17. The easy takeoff method:
  18. P-51D airfoil: Tip: http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=p51dtip-il Root: http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=p51droot-il FW 190D airfoil: Couldn't find it. The closest I could find was a similar wing with thinner chord Root: http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/details?airfoil=naca23015-il
  19. I suspect that those graphs are without corrections for compressibility error. The calculated graph for the P-51D on the other hand shows the top speed as 703 km/h (436mph). I assume they took compressibility error into consideration when doing those calculations.
  20. And were those historical test corrected for error due to compressibility? At that hight that error could be as big as 8mph. See here for example. It's a FW 190 A-5, but it shows the effect of compressibility error. Obviously, higher the speed and altitude, higher the error. Left line - corrected for compressibility error Right line - without correction
  21. That whole area also flickers sometimes. The entire texture lights up for a few seconds. There's something going on there.
  22. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=127100
  23. Nice. Pretty much undinable proof that the bar shouldn't be there.
  24. I agree, controll stiffness is lacking in this sim. But... let's not pretend that BOS is an accurate study sim and is a good reference on real aircraft behaviour.
×
×
  • Create New...