I think I understand the viewpoint of the developers, though. rgreat did a lot of stupid shit on a whim just because people complained on the forums with no real evidence of why their complaints were justified. Now, it seems there is a policy that you have to explain every change you would like to make in extreme detail so as to convince even a near idiot that you are correct. This is good, because it keeps idiots from fucking up the game, but it also delays progress. That being said, any progress should be good progress, albeit very slow progress. Essentially, if you want a change, you have to have some absolute proof to get that change. I'm still waiting to see the results from my argument about the P-38, and the argument to revert all FM to WB 2.77, so don't quote me on that yet. I do have high hopes for it, though. It seemed that an agreement was reached in my favor in at least one of those arguments.
Yeah, I figure it's one of two things, or both. Either they can't come up with something valid to vote it down, or they are exhausted disputing the case.
I don't know if the i-16 was changed but, one thing I noticed tonight when flying it...when I lost an aileron, it flew LIKE IT LOST AN AILERON! I don't know if it always flew like that but, I think that all aircraft should behave the same way. It makes sense the way it responded with a missing aileron. Lost the port side aileron and what was interesting to me is that when I rolled the aircraft, it would roll just as good as it would with both ailerons but only on one side. The port side just kinda hung there like the longitudinal axis had shifted to the left since it didn't have an aileron. The starboard side would respond as it should with an aileron present. In the P-38, and other aircraft, losing an aileron means the aircraft still rolls like it's rolling on it's longitudinal X axis, rather than rolling like one wing is missing an aileron. When losing an aileron on the P-38, it's rolling ability feels like it's lost 70%+ of it's rolling ability. It should still roll on one side just like it would normally, however, the longitudinal axis would be predominantly on the wing with a missing aileron. http://www.firebirdsindia.com/Stability_Concepts.php http://dc102.4shared.com/doc/r9A0uhH0/preview.html Oh, and the i16 cockpit is hideous.
There was a time I looked foreward to entering the arena, tons of people/pilots to fight with and against at any given time, the flight models were not so screwed up (we are back to wierd stalls again along with no acceleration) I'll be looking for another WWII flight sim, may take awhile but I'll find something and will let all here know when the source code is leaked so we can all fly again for free
Hey man. There is one decent flight sim I know of that is OSS.... There are, too, a LOT of little tiny things that run in a xterm and are those points n rays things, you know, uh, what is the term I need? 3d vectored graphics but I may be wrong, anyway..... And proprietary app called X-Plane Uh, I dream of X-Plane having some plug-ins that would make it viable to dogfight with. And not crazy shit to network [which I have not done successfully and it is because of RTFM [WHAT M? Where is it? Is it in English or Meyer?] Wouldn't that be great? [If you have xplane 9, try the fuckin P-39 or one of the [pick through them] SPitfires or Bf-109s hahahaha. What a fuckin blast to fly in that simulator [not much of a game] HAHAHAHAHA (No, it's all good, man, it's all good stay calm)] X-Plane is closed source and I pay for mine, four times now. And will again {XP X is soon, maybe another month or two from now, fuck, time for a new PC], sorry. But all a pluggin is is just another way for closed source can handle that. Plug-ins are sort of, uh, memory modules, are they not? Like the ones I got here, in my Linux boxes. Get out yer c books, and dream up some methods of modeling projectiles... oh, WAIT the fm does that already. K, tracking the movement of those projectiles, etc. All old issues for Engineers, eh? [Fuck I hope your PM works] You and Me, we connect each with our own X-Planes and we make each other see the other on the computer we are lookin at from here, to there, yours and mine, like and be dogfight and every time you are in the danger zone, you hear the voice of you friend, over your speakers, from his mike.... Tackatackatackatacka Look at yer PMs See ya.
Hummmm........ well "yes and no" time... maybe.. The only thing I can think of is : The P38 does have a considerable mass on each wing over any single engine plane. So... first question is: what is the effect on other twin engine craft that the engines are not counter-rotating ? My guess would be the unique feature of the P-38 (opposed to all other twins) is the counter-rotating props. So the reaction of a missing aileron would be dampened by the substantial mass on the opposite side of the centerline. Therefore a higher polar moment of inertia than single engine planes with aileron failure. That's my 2 cents....
