Need an assistance for translating new fh site

Me editing HTML?
Oh. I bet I could copypasta as well as the next GNU+Linux user.
Note the italics, I am a user.

 

You mean, as in specific maneuvers to avoid in certain aircraft?

 

Well, maybe not editing and such but, some interesting content. Some of us are very knowledgeable about particular aircraft. I'm thinking we can all provide some input. It's a team effort. I like involving everyone.

 

ALW, if you have English language content for the site, post it here or send it to me and it will be committed to the repository (assuming it's reasonable).

 

Reasonable??!!! I'll give you reasonable!

Anyway, thanks for posting the information from earlier. I see the the button is updated but, it's whiter than the Russian version. Also, it should be "FREE Download" rather than "Download Free". Better yet though, can that button just function as a background rather than a linkable image? The text over the image in a cell can be adjusted/changed per language setting. In past, I created html scripts like this where the cell box would have background properties that would adjust in size, keeping the same border/background appearance with different text space changes.

 

ask again, please.

 

What do you mean by "special tactics" ?

 

specific, not special.

the tactics that you can use in the specific fighter to get the best results.

have you ever read http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/showpost.php?p=789291&postcount=90 ?

 

1. specific/special mean the same thing. Just something unique.

2. Anyway, concerning the "Aircraft" page:
Each aircraft have something unique about them. I read what you wrote there in the link. My thoughts concerning those personal reports are good to see from experienced pilots who use those aircraft. However, I wouldn't necessarily put that information in the "Aircraft" section. The "Aircraft" section should contain standard characteristics regarding the current aircraft present in the game. That is what I was expecting to see entered into the website under "Aircraft". It would be important to provide data concerning actual historical characteristics though for reference. There aren't that many sites out there that provide a centralized statistical repository within a simulator website that gather the information we have. We have really gone into great depths and discussion regarding each model that arrives in the RPS.
My thoughts about the "Aircraft" page:
It should list the current aircraft we have in the RPS list.
Each aircraft should have an image of it in the game, and a real picture.
The options that variant was issued.
The entry and duration of use in the war.
And then have this information from Martin Struwe included. Not a link. This should be a one stop website with some simple information for now.


3. The RPS list in the "Aircraft" page....should have it's own page I think.

4. I suppose under the "Basic Tactics" we would enter the information you provided.

5. "Flight Instruction" would store a repository of information which instructs the user how to grasp the idea of aerial combat. People showing up from slow flat earth ground games such as tank wars, unrealistic car racing games, and science fiction space games are in for a surprise into the reality of kill or be killed combat from every direction where stalls, blackouts, redouts, crashing, spinning out of control, leaking, ammo limitations, speed limitations, opponent analyzing, planning, LANDING, TAKING OFF, etc play a large factor. I really like the fact that our WBFH Main Arena has no auto take off or landing. No inflight radar. No outside viewing (arcade) for fighters. However, we could use some ease of use settings in a "new user" arena. Something similar to offline practice flying. Keeping them online will help encourage others to join in if interested. Not sure what it takes to set something up like that but, it would make a big difference for the newbies.

What do you guys think of this?

 

Good ideas, just need someone to spend the time creating/modifying the text.

I modified the English download button as you suggested (5-minute hack in GIMP

IMHO, the best thing to do from here -- at least for us English speakers, but probably for the other languages as well -- is to just get some basic content in each section and push it online. Then tweak content. Perfection being the enemy of the good in these cases

 

Here I have attached my "Air Combat Tips" text. I will also create a similar file for bombing, capping, and jeep defense

 

ok, ALW.

3) RPS is a separate page.

4) Basic tactics doesn't mean to include specific one? Ok, you decide which chapter should contain specific tactics.

 

Hahah...I appreciate you guys working on getting this whole thing rolling again! I agree, basic content is the best way to go for now. As long as it all flows nicely. Just the game basics I'm thinking.

 

3. Not sure what you mean

4. The idea I have in mind is to give a "basic tactic" on how to fly aircraft and maneuvers to use in any aircraft, regardless of their type. I don't want to provide opinions from experienced pilots with skills that surpass a beginner. Some pilots cannot shoot down a he177 with a spit 14 or figure out how to shoot the gun in a jeep/tank. Some don't know what autopilot is for, or icon ranges mean. You know, the guys that start firing from D12.

 

Also, in regards to the game itself, partially related to this topic, are the help screens. I have always wanted to create updated pages. Dot commands and key commands on one page. Since WBFH has so many variations in dot commands and new features, it would be nicer to have this info listed on only one or two pages, and leave the other pages open for other functions like maps and rps lists. I've created my own RPS list for the custom help pages and also maps that show orientation of fields for bomb runs.

Once we have established some help pages, having different language versions would be great I think! For Russian, Spanish, Portuguese, Turkish, Czech, Bosnian, etc

Having a download page with these files would be awesome.

 

i mean that we discuss chapters:

for novices\how to take-off (and land)
for novices\basic manoeuvres
for novices\elements of tactics (common sense: turn-n-burn, boom-n-zoom, merging, escaping, strafing, norden, etc)
for novices\airplanes descriptions (advantages and disadvantages)
for players\RPS simple
for players\RPS verbose

basic manoeuvres and elements of tactics are for initial knowledge. the next chapter aircraft was afair destined for airplanes descriptions.

 

did anyone take a look at the text file that I uploaded?

 

Good stuff. That can be used for "basic tactics".

Nose mounted gunnery specifics I don't necessarily agree with. Dispersion and convergence settings create the effect of wing mounted dispersion if desired. I find it easier to hit targets at distances up to D6 and even up to D8 when in vertical.

 

1) energy phenomena is not transparent in your text.
you did not mention that you can convert speed to alt.

2) instead of "#2 searching" i'd propose you to put situation awareness to the first place. don't use terms before you defined them (e.g. con, six-o-clock, etc). basic terms can be item #0 in the text.

3) disagree with you about nose guns. nose guns are more accurate than wing ones. with specific convergence you must keep in mind that optimal firing distance is about distance of your convergence. and don't forget about inclination of guns. convergence actually focuses the bullets to line-of-sight at the given distance, including height of the ballistic trajectory

(you can easily check that with fus-mounted 57mm molins:
with 999yd you can aim to d9
with 999yd projectiles overflight target at d3
with 300yd projectiles fall below target at d9
with 300yd you can aim to d3)

but these details are not for starting briefing. just mention that "convergence is focus of all guns" and "most devastating fire is at d2-d3. at d3-d4 fire is less effective, with d4-d6 you can have a luck, with d6 and more shooting is practically useless".

 

No problem, I can reupload the new text file that will contain the new information except on gun configurations where we might have to agree to disagree. I will add a more detailed description of the advantages and pitfalls of both though.

Accuracy is not the measure by which I compared the two weapon configurations. I wrote that "placing shots is generally easier with wing guns than with nose guns... when the aircraft is taking evasive action" which is true (and it should be noted that ease of striking a target and accuracy are not the same). Assuming that the shooter is < d5 where most shooting happens and that the convergence is not set to some uncommon value such as 999 (I never mess with convergence so mine stays set on 300), deflection shooting is easier with wing guns than nose guns. The reason is that for a plane with wing guns, there is theoretically only only one spot in space in which the lines of fire of the weapons converge. This means that for the vast majority of the bullet's trajectory there is an entire region of space that represents a possible strike on the enemy aircraft (image 1). Lets ignore gravity for simplicity since both weapon configurations would encounter it. The wing gun's "bullet region" approximates two triangles whose apexes are coincident. This is as opposed to nose guns where the bullet's trajectory region looks something like a thin rectangle.

In the attached image I used the 190 and 109 as an example
From the image its evident that the area of the 190's "bullet region" is greater than the area of that of the 109 although the difference is less pronounced when we ignore the trajectory beyond the ideal firing distance which would be from the convergence point to the tips of the gun barrels. This means that statistically it has a greater likelihood of hitting the enemy aircraft.Up until the convergence point, if an enemy aircraft is anywhere inside of the triangle it is in danger of being struck.

Ignoring gravity, the 109 has unchanged likelihood of striking the enemy plane for theoretically infinite distance, but as you have already noted firing beyond a certain distance is practically useless unless you are using 30mm.

I suppose that in the end it could come down to the preferences of the pilot. But for me, by in large deflection shooting is easier with wing guns while shooting from the long six is easier with nose guns.