To: hitech-sim (Hitech Simulation Mailing list) Reply-To: hitech-sim (Hitech Simulation Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Precedence: bulk Bcc: hitech-sim-out Subject: Hitech Simulation Digest V1 : I16 Hitech Simulation Digest Volume 1 : Issue 16 Wed Jul 28 06:07:31 PDT 1993 Compilation copyright (C) 1993 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "hitech-sim@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] Today's Topics: AW Wingovers rogers@sol.instrumental.com (Bob Ro Hammerhead stalls and wingovers... Keith Comeford DTN:381-2246 ------------------------------------------------------------ From: rogers@sol.instrumental.com (Bob Rogers) Subject: AW Wingovers MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU (Scott Morgan) writes: >I have yet to pull a decent wingover. I am using the WCS which controls >throttle, rudders, flaps, and radar. I'll pull up into near stall kick the >rudder full over but it does not seem to respond. I should note that >my plane of choice (I fly little else) is the F4U Corsair. That plane >may just not be oriented to that type of manuever. After reading this I picked up an aerobatics book at the library and tried to execute the wingover they described. The book calls it a "military wingover". It says that you (starting from level flight) dive slightly, pull the nose up, and begin a highly banked turn when the nose rises above the horizon. In the diagram, the plane zooms up and over, but is always turning - it doesn't hang nose-up like you'd see in a hammerhead stall. After the wingover you should be at the original alititude, but on a reciprocal heading. I tried it in a P-38 (full realism) and could almost do it, but had to recover from a stall and didn't quite turn 180 degrees. Is AW the best simulator for aerobatics? There may be lots of competitive non-combat uses for AW (races, anyone?). - -- Bob Rogers Internet: rogers@instrumental.com Instrumental, Inc. GEnie: R.C.ROGERS Minneapolis, MN Phone: 612-920-6188 ------------------------------- From: Keith Comeford DTN:381-2246 Subject: Hammerhead stalls and wingovers... Hammerheads and wingovers both involve stalls. In the hammerhead the whole aircraft is stalled, usually pointed straight up. If sufficeint engine thrust is available, the plane is "hung on its prop" for show for a bit. Its exited by sliding backwards and stomping left or right rudder to have the nose point back at mother earth. In a wingover only 1 wing stalls, the inside one I believe. the outside one continues to generate lift and with the aid of matching rudder (i.e. if the left wing is the inside stalled wing, then left rudder is applied) the plane is swung back around. The hammerhead is distinctly NOT BFM, its a real good way to make a target of yourself and hang in the sky waiting for bullets or a missile up the tailpipe. The Wingover is BFM for the WWI period craft. Because its hard to stall one wing without the other being near stall speed a wingover implies slow speed. In later craft (WWII and up) where the difference between stall speed and cruise/corner speed is much greater (and the time to return to cruise/corner speed is also great) the wingover is dangerous other than to cause an overshoot. And if you succeed in causing said overshoot you'd better KILL that target, because if he gets away he will have an energy advantage. In a multi-craft environment (like AirWarrior) a wingover is a fantastic way to die in a very pretty maneuver. Remember credo 1 of air combat, Speed is Life. The spin concept isn't bad, but not having played SVGA AirWarrior, I'm not so sure how easy it is to recover or to initiate. Its usually pretty easy to generate one controlled spin called a snap roll. Just cross the controls (rudder left, stick back to right for example) and you should perform something with a vague resemblence to a barrel roll (but much faster). I'm not sure I'd use this as BFM either, it bleeds energy in most planes, and is really disorienting. I'm a fan of Aerobatics and of flight sims. I've got Aces of the Pacific and Falcon 3.0d. I also play after work with some local homebrew sims which have fairly accurate flight models (thanks to some pilots withing DEC) though simpler graphics (as they were written to run originally on Microvax II, a machine about the speed of a slow 386 and didn't use table lookups for calculations and yielded good (10+ fps) frame rates as that is critical for multiplayer sims to the developers feelings). These days they can yield 60-100+ FPS on modern hardware (usually display limited and throttled back to avoid swamping our local network and annoying other network users). I'll be honest, most days none of us that fight here get this exotic with maneuvers; Yo-Yos, split S's, immelmans, scissors are pretty standard. Every once and a while someone gets fancy and starts a rolling scissor or a lag roll, but most days they screw it up and die (usually me). I'd stick with the simple concepts embodied in the Bible of FCTM (Robert Shaw) and use and practice those first, Especially in a N vs N vs N world like SVGA AirWarrior (someday I'll get on, but right now I waste my GEnie time with MPBtech :-) (or as used on GEnie)). Thanks, Keith Comeford ------------------------------- From: carlos@tick.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Carlos Smith) Subject: Red Baron on TSN? With all of the talk of AW on Genie, I was wondering if anyone has tried Red Baron on the Sierra Network. Is it full-speed or half-speed like AW? Do the planes handle as well as they do in the stand-alone game? How do graphics and sound compare? Any comments would be appreciated, especially from people who have flown both. [ I have flown both. I tried RB on TSN for around 2 months. Basically, it seemed like an arcade game, with a bunch of "kids" flying. There was no real planning, just fly solo and do as much damage as you can. With the limited time of flights (10 minutes, or 3 crashes/killed I think), you didn't have time to do anything serious. Then, you would have to "wait in line" to fly again. Not to mention their (lack of) customer support. When I canceled TSN, I was continued to be billed for around 6 months. Calls to TSN, and American Express couldn't resolve it. It took threats of legal action to get them to stop billing me, and to remove the charges. (after I had not even used the service for ~6 months, and had notified them in writing to cancel my account.) Yuck. --Jeff ] Carlos Smith Interleaf, Inc. carlos@Ileaf.COM Know Future, Know Chow ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: RB vs TSN >With all of the talk of AW on Genie, I was wondering if anyone has tried >Red Baron on the Sierra Network. Is it full-speed or half-speed like AW? >Do the planes handle as well as they do in the stand-alone game? How do >graphics and sound compare? >Any comments would be appreciated, especially from people who have flown >both. >Carlos Smith I have flown both RB and AW. Due to monetary considerations and time I fly RB on TSN much more than I do AW. In this crowd I am kinda of ashamed to admit that!!! :-} RB and TSN is not the home of the hardcore pilot. It is a much more relaxed area which is more of a gaming arena than a simulator. RB is only offered in Sierra Land on TSN. With Sierra Land TSN goes for about 17 /mo for 30 hours. About 50% of the participants in Sierra Land are kids under the age of 16. Not to say that they are not good fliers. The environment can be a bit too cutesy for the unaware. You can fly RB with up to 3 other people (2 on a side) for a dog fight that has a maximum time of 10 minutes (? nine?). In normal mode you get three lives. Shot down three times and you are out of the arena. Normal mode give you what the standard flight model in RB stand alone gives you, no spins, no gun jams etc. In expert mode you get gun jams, wing tip stalls and spins. Yopu can tear the wings of the Neuport in a dive. You also only get one life in an expert engagement. The flight of the planes is very similar to the stand alone version and you have access to nearly all the planes of the stand alone version. Each plane has it's own strengths which must be flown to. An example would be the superior climbing of the Spad vs the greater agility of the DR I. The TSN network can be flakey at times. Sometimes warping is a big problem. Like in AW I have found ways around it by shooting ahead of the target and letting the other fly into your bullets. I have been on the six of a foe, and been hit by him! Hmmmmm. TSN can do some wierd things at times. Some TSN regulars have hacked their planes. You can tell this when they fly at the speed of sound and one hit takes you down. It is not an significant problem though. Through all of this I actually like TSN and RB. It is a very social place and as I work long hours live alone while I complete my graduate work it is a **fun** place to visit. It is quite relaxing to jump in there and fly with out getting over worked. AW and Genie on the other hand is just the opposite. The AW world centers on realism as much as it can. Members communicate between planes to fly complex missions to take enemy bases and dogfight. The AW world is much more expansive and engrossing for a true flight sim and air combat fan. It is also a lot more work and more money. Not the kind of thing I like to relax to but more of an occupation where you get up to get something done. It is emensely satisfying to get up with fellow flight enthusiasts and actually experience aerial combat with knowledgable foes! Well you have probably heard alot about AW. Others can expand much more than I can. I will say I have and will keep (for now) both RB on TSN and AW on GEnie. RB is arcade style fun with other people who like to play interactive games. AW on GEnie is where you go to learn AC with fellow flight enthusiasts. It is alot of fun but you have alot more to do and manage to keep your self from being shot to pieces by other fliers. As the ad says "...This opponent wants to rip your lungs out" :-) Enjoy Cyberspace! Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ------------------------------- From: stenger@zeus.uni-duisburg.de (Joerg Stenger) Subject: Tornado SAMs: How to survive (sometimes) Hi, after several unlogged hours (Cancel-Button) I finally succeeded in completing Mission 3, WZ 1 (wpt X: SEAD, wpt Y: runway). First time I never succeeded in passing waypoint X although I fired my ALARM as soon as the TWI flashed up. Then I decided to re-read the Man-pages about the ALARM and tried something else. Instead of using the direct mode I fire two ALARMS in indirect mode when I'm 10 NM far away from X (the "to-go-cycle" at the HUD is at 4 o clock). It works! Although the SAM-site shoots up one or two SAMs it is destroyed before the SAMs reach me :-)) Has someone else tested that in other missions? Joerg "Dancer" Stenger PS: Scott in WV, could You please mail me Your e-mail-address, I can't reach You. ------------------------------- From: rogers@sol.instrumental.com (Bob Rogers) Subject: AW B-17s Does anyone know if there has ever been an Air Warrior B-17 mission executed at historically correct altitudes? - -- Bob Rogers Internet: rogers@instrumental.com Instrumental, Inc. GEnie: R.C.ROGERS Minneapolis, MN Phone: 612-920-6188 ------------------------------- From: Jeff Beadles Subject: Re: AW B-17s >Does anyone know if there has ever been an Air Warrior B-17 mission executed >at historically correct altitudes? What is historically correct? I've been on a mission with B17's at a spread between 15-20k. (Yes, with P51 escorts.) It takes quite a bit, but it was a blast. It was something like 10 buffs, and 15 escorts. As I recall, the escorts didn't even bother with bogies <10k. -Jeff - -- Jeff Beadles jeff@onion.rain.com ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 1 : Issue 16 ]]