Jump to content

USARStarkey

Members
  • Content Count

    749
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

About USARStarkey

  • Rank
    Member
  1. :megalol: colored charts eh? I guess only your SWAG is evidence then.....lol. Perhaps if it was in black an white you'd understand it better.
  2. Pilum also ran the math, its doesnt agree with yours, and unlike yours it was the product of careful computer simulation....not SWAG
  3. LOL I am taking nothing personally..... This Dora does not meet the 41-4400fpm performance data layed out by Focke-Wulf and.......everyone who isnt yo-yo or you. It is wrong, end of story. Its over-performing, understand yet? 5000-5500 fpm isnt even withing the 10 percent margin of error. Which by the way, is not a minimum, but is WITHIN 10 percent. Regardless of which, does not put a climb rate of 5-5500 fpm within that tolerance. Not even close. Your accepted methods for calculating performance are clearly only your own. How is it that everyone else calculates the performance of t
  4. No, there arent any IRL tests, but that is hardly carte blanch to simply make up whatever climb rate you want. I am quite confidant that the Germans were quite good at estimating the performance of the planes they designed. Some variance is allowed, but not an exorbitant additional 1500fpm higher than the German estimates, Pilums estimates, and the estimates of every other FM made for this plane. Case in point, the estimates for 2.02ata dont even come close to the rates we see in game. You seem to be under the impression that a 20 percent margin is somehow close enough for a flight model. Seri
  5. Yeah, at the difference is so large you get massive performance boosts :lol:
  6. No the Germans did it for me, better than you could ever do, and lo and behold, every other point of data except this game agrees with them
  7. Then it is 11% wrong, obviously.
  8. The weights are close enough, especially since they give basically the same numbers in every paper regardless of the small weight changes. The 2.02 ata 190 couldnt climb at over 5000fpm, so the D-9 with 1.8 ata sure as hell wouldn't. None of the german tests or estimates show anything remotely close to a over 5000fpm climbe rate. No previous sim as modeled a 190 at such a climb. Pilums estimates dont agree either. So how is it that Yo-Yo as suddenly discovered such a massive climb increase? Nobody elses estimates agree Crump. Interesting how the same estimates almost exactly pred
  9. Yes, because slight adjustments in max weight result in 1500 feet per minute climb rate increases...... Not to mention the weights in the German documents are more or less the same.
  10. My point is to show precisely what the difference is. Obviously we all know its different. However it goes a long way towards productive conversation if we have some references to work from. People have already made posts quoting pilots are their spotting stories, so Im giving images that show people exactly what it looks like to support the conversation. Where is your response to others telling them their posts are pointless?
  11. I am quite interested in seeing what EDGE does. Perhaps it does alot to fix this. However, like many many others here, I would like to see some scaling implemented (as a start) to fixing this issue as a whole.
  12. Who is saying its easy? Or that a game would not need artificial mechanisms to make these things work? Nobody is saying that.
  13. No camouflage works that well. Soldiers wear camo, but we dont just disappear except under very specific conditions. Largely, camo just makes you a little less easy to see unless your literally inside a bush. They do not blend in even close to the extent you see in this game, or others. Its just not a easy as it would be if the plane was painted orange.
  14. At one mile I can see a plane yes, but not that easily. At one mile in DCS a WW2 fighter is about .5 miles from being invisible. Im not saying you CANT see one at 1 miles in DCS, im demonstrating how different it is to IRL.
×
×
  • Create New...