Rapitor

Technical Moderator
  • Content count

    6,762
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,657 Outstanding

7 Followers

About Rapitor

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    at your plane
  • Website URL
    http://0029222

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Switzerland, French Part
  • Interests
    Plane, bike, hiking in the mountains.
    Aerodynamics, physics, engineering.

Recent Profile Visitors

15,369 profile views
  1. I personally believe that cornering your plane to a unique role (Xx can only BnZ yy can only turnfight) is limiting yourself quite a lot. Depending on your energy state (mostly your speed vs opponent) you can actually do quite a few nice trick to a spitfire, with a FW, while turning. I have outturned many spits in a FW, knowing the fact that they were too slow to have an angular velocity as good as mine
  2. Ah oui. Ça a été rapporté en effet. Faut juste lire les petites lignes du contrat avant de cliquer sur 'départ' :-)
  3. B7A has bomber spawn, 2x 20mm, and run havok at altitude. Il-2 starts at attacker height....
  4. I would say don't follow this guy. Because if he can only do such statements, obviously he won't teach you any good move / theory to improve your flying.
  5. Hello, RB GF ou RB air ?
  6. I am very sure that there is at least 2 suggestions already passed to devs about way to improve the kill system. I do understand that it is frustrating, but hopefully, that was a rare issue and in the future, a critical hit will be awarded, as well as a kill in due time. Answered and locked. Regards Rapitor
  7. Except since 1.61, it runs with 2700HP with WEP and 2300 at 100%, which is correct. You want it to run with 3100hp ?
  8. I still cannot reproduce =(- The only way I had to mimic your video in the OP was to set gun target distance (m) : NO. But then, it is normal to have the bullet go below the aim, as you cannot use vertical targeting if the convergence is not set.
  9. Hello, To answer this specific question: WT wiki knows: https://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=Damage_mechanics Bouncing on this, you said: therefore, from the wiki, the best in suite damage is "serious damage": Serious damage – is the destruction of one of the active engines while other engines are available or major wing damage without it being cut off. Serious damage is displayed on the side of the players display using gray text. A Player gains vehicle destruction from this damage only in if enemy aircraft has crashed and does not have active critical damage on it. At the same time it should be achieved while the timer is still in effect; 30 seconds in arcade battles, 60 seconds in realistic battles and 80 seconds in simulator battles. It is very likelty that the target took more than 60 seconds to crash, therefore the kill was not granted. Regards, Rapitor
  10. Your Bug Report is submitted and a Bug ID has been assigned: 0056814 This thread will remain unlocked for 7 days in order to allow anyone with information / evidence / examples to post them. It will also serve as a place where the developers may post questions for you to answer, so please keep up to date here. Thank you for helping us improving the game. Sincerely, Rapitor, for the ™ team
  11. Transmis, merci. ID: 0056813
  12. Hello. C'est essentiellement un problème d'interface. ça n'affiche rien, mais aucun point n'est perdu. Tu peux faire une vidange des caches, ça devrait résoudre le problème.
  13. I will report the behavior nonetheless. You would expect from WEP to give you an extra boost quicker than after 5-15 seconds
  14. Nope. No idea. 64" is from manual, so it will likely happen at some point, 70" for a P-47D might have to wait for a new D-30 models, as D-25 and D-28 already have their differences
  15. When you raised a Br about all P-47 having all different wep values, none of the document provided mentioned high rating without WEP. Aside from the 70" rating, all the sources you provided marched D-25 manuals
  16. Sorry, I can't let this one go. FYI, a power is an exponent, and does comply with an exponential behavior. Even x² is a function with an exponential behavior. It is not very polite to mock someone who is right because you do not know what you are talking about.
  17. I have a BR ongoing about WEP being 57'', and 2300HP, which is from razorbacks (initial testing) setting. D-25 and above should run 2535HP and with 64" as per the plane manual. That would have a direct influence on its performance I think
  18. In addition to the very well detailed explanation (ty Risay761), basic mistake: being impatient. You wanted that Yak-3, but trying hard to follow to actually lag being and bleed all your energy in turning was a bad move. It is 'natural' to have a strong will to follow the target, but if your plane is inferior in such scenario, it is also natural to lose the fight.
  19. It might be worth a BR. Just to keep track of this.
  20. Thing is, I do not have this. It might be a module / stock syndrome, but so far, from stock to spaded, I tried many thing and couldn't reproduce your issue. The fact you are getting a such low speed in your screens is actually worrying me. Do you use MEC ?
  21. When you say 'point of aim and point of impact are different', do you mean for a shell before convergence distance, at.convergence distance, or after convergence distance?
  22. That'svertical targeting + parallax + non horizontal shooting, increased by the fact that in 3rd person view, at rest on the ground, the camera is more biased (clipping with ground). Set vertical targeting to 'yes', jump into cockpit, see that shells go on dot at required distance, ±a few mm on screen because targetting is set for shot with horizontal attitude, and shells going up are not following the usual flypath when mecs are tuning the gun elevtation.
  23. Putting that sentence without any background behind it is basically a call to be criticised by half of the forum instantly. When people just throw statistics without any background or understanding, they should not do it actually.
  24. In RB, plane takes longer to stabilize and spread due to banking / last second adjustment is bigger than AB. That's why, most of the time, last second adjustment will miss target in RB/SB
  25. From my experience, spiral climb and maneuvers based on the enemy stalling first are very high skill maneuver. Take any youtuber doing this maneuver in tutorials etc (and not just headons and deflection shots). It sounds terribly easy to do. But doing it improperly is just self-setting you up for an easy shot from the enemy. Energy evaluation is aporoximative, that's why energy traps work, sometime both way
  26. I will check the replay, thank you. Although I noticed this as well during my esting
  27. Hi. I just give the E-4 a spin, about the same altitude that you got. In both case of spaded and stock plane, AB and RB 1) I was capable of outspeeding you by 40kmh minimum (SPD 400+ kmh) 2) WEP did increase speed by some kmh. Do you have a replay please ?
  28. Thank you for the testing. I was personally capable of reaching a steady 574kmh (because my engine was not as hot as yours; orange = power loss). But I agree that charts are not matching IG testing. Please bear with me for some time; I have currently another issue ongoing which is affecting speed test (all planes concerned), which I have to sort out before going further with this report. Regards, Rapitor
  29. Hi. Thank you for following the guidelines of the section properly. Question before going further: Are your Do-217 spaded, or are some modules missing ?
  30. I never investigated the question. But if that is Coming from GJ official channel, such as 'Barrel roll' or 'Shooting range' series, consider it true
  31. About this comment and what I failed to quote ahead (damn phone) ... no. Practically, IRL, reducing your pitch always comes with a reduction in power and rpm. That's how throttle with CSP and manifold works. You reduce the throttle, therefore the pitch otherwise your blades will spin too slow for current pitch. You will never see any speed figure from IRL testing not at full throttle full engine power full M.P. available. Therefore the question is 'why does it sometime happen in WT?' Simple. In WT, going for Xx% pitch will go for Xx% of max RPM (except German where pitch control affects pitch range properly). The trick is that due.to magical forces, lowering RPM won't reduce the engine power, which is unphysical. Long story short, same power / manifold with lower RPM isimpossible, hence the abuse in speed. Technically, both are linked to some extent. Increase pitch with a fixed engine power will reduce the RPM.
  32. Except for M-20 API-T, current .50 cal round penetration matches .50 cal manual. I know that, I raised the BR prior being a Tech mod and I looked upon it when I became TM. This said, the fire starting chance of any round IG is a model, and can be tuned, given proper arguments. We do not simulate ignition chemistery in WT.
  33. Problem persists because players want to turnfight with planes designed for another role. And they climb quite well for their mass.
  34. Hello. Datasheets are not accepted as reference material. They tend to be outdated when a FM update happens. I acknowldge the power drop with speed, but for the power altitude value, you will need an external source to get your point through. Regards, Rapitor
  35. Your Bug Report is submitted and a Bug ID has been assigned: 0056701 This thread will remain unlocked for 7 days in order to allow anyone with information / evidence / examples to post them. It will also serve as a place where the developers may post questions for you to answer, so please keep up to date here. Thank you for helping us improving the game. Sincerely, Rapitor, for the ™ team
  36. You can also go through the 400 pages before, including some endless debate on Hunter speed, Cd0, etc.
  37. Hello, Vérifies ton anti-virus et ton firewall, c'est typique d'un problème de droit en écriture
  38. As I said, by using the free camera option in the replay, every hit that "missed", was actually on target, but you hit a tree / ground. Trees do not show on the indicator. report closed.
  39. Hi. Same as your previous BR. Same issue with stabilization mechanism pushing the tank outside its physical limit. Regards, Rapitor
  40. Non tu n'es pas le seul. Je cite la "première" phrase du post officiel: Je pense que ça répond à ta question. Cordialement, Rapitor
  41. I do not see when stab is on or off in replay. However, what I saw is shell #1 hitting a tree, shell #2 hitting a tree, shell #3 hitting the tiger, shell #4 hitting the ground shell #5 hitting the tiger. All of them going where you aimed. When HEAT-FS hit an obstacle (any), they will trigger.
  42. Your Bug Report is submitted and a Bug ID has been assigned: 0056693 This thread will remain unlocked for 7 days in order to allow anyone with information / evidence / examples to post them. It will also serve as a place where the developers may post questions for you to answer, so please keep up to date here. Thank you for helping us improving the game. @senfwurst Out of curiosity, it seems that you are not using the default localhost:8111 interface to get IG value reading. What are you using ? I wish to give it a try. Sincerely, Rapitor, for the ™ team
  43. Hello. The issue for P-63 (all verisons) is known. ID:0055578 I will submit another BR for the Seaf Fury. shortly
  44. No Answers, considered as solved.
  45. Hello. This issue is known and reported to the devs already. ID: 0055485 Thank you for bringing it to up to us. Rapitor
  46. Hello. The issue is known, documented and reported already. ID: 0038776. Thank you very much. Rapitor
  47. hello. I am sorry, but I have a hard time understanding your issue. Could you try to explain it to me once again? Regards, Rapitor
  48. Hi. Thank you for your bug report. I will check that and come back at you. Rapitor
  49. Do you have a specific Clip in mind ? Last time I went to an airshow, Spitfire and other planes got their exhaust flames visible. Going for exhaust flame airplane on youtube gave me some nice results. And don't forget that this is a game, and a video is subject to exposure and light density, which might be modelised to a lesser extent IG, therefore making indeed flames slightly more visible. For night flying, P-47 'reference lights' does include tail light, wing lights and exhaust flames! Exhaust flames is actually a request made by the community to the devs, not the devs adding a 'cool stuff' for shoe.
  50. @Retry Last time I asked as Dev on a Q&A, he told me thst plane speed was taken into account for bullet speed etc.
  51. Take off flaps have an effect on instantaneous turn rate. Sustained turn rate is more complex, by the fact that it will obviously enhance turn radius, but not turn rate It is not because you cannot see the benefits of the flaps in a test which makes no sens to assess their strength that you can pull such conclusions.
  52. ça joue, merci. J'ai xWaspx qui a eu un declick et ça m'a fait demander
  53. Thank you. Bug ID to be issued soon, when the model is on dev for checking
  54. Hello. The datasheet is quite old, and P-51D series went through an update if I am not mistaken. Being right or wrong, for any FM issue, you are asked to perform the test as per the procedure otherwise the BR won't be processed: Regards, Rapitor
  55. I do not have access to extra tool, but to the humans behind the code. I simply asked someone that does in the devs to give me weight (full fuel) and the weight with 0% fuel. I won't blame you for anything, but keep in mind that, as I said, FM datamining is not trustable Nonetheless, the full weight is indeed incorrect, while the empty weight seems correct +- a very few %.
  56. OK. So here is my conclusion. You were right and wrong. I checked the weight. Current weight at take off (full fuel + ammunition, pilots, and everything you can put aboard) is about 20080lb (9109kg). Current weight (no fuel) is 13447lb (6100kg) According to manual F9F-8B Cougar Characteristics, the weight, without any external equipment but racks is 18035lb (8180kg) (page 3 of the PDF, mission details) The weight, without fuel and coolant (for landing) is about 13292lb (mass at take-off minus fuel weight) (6029kg) and 13428lb (weight for landing - fuel) Therefore, yes, there is an issue that I will report. But your interpretation of the FM files, as I said, is not legit at all. The explanation given on the F9F-8 thread is incorrect, as you added the mass of the engine, which is for sure part of any weight of a plane be it empty, full etc, as per its definition
  57. OK. So here is my conclusion. You were wrong. I checked the weight. Current weight at take off (full fuel + Water for WEP, + ammunition, pilots, and everything you can put aboard) is about 18237lb (8273kg). Current weight (no fuel, but WEP available) is 11736lb (5324kg) According to manual an-01-85fgc-1 Pilot's handbook for F9F-5, the weight, without any external equipment is 18540lb (8410kg) (page 125 of the PDF) The weight, without fuel and coolant (for WEP) is about 11830lb (5366kg) (190lb of coolant (86kg)) (So 12020lb / 5452kg no fuel, WEP available). Therefore, yes, there is an issue that I will report. But according to IG weight, current F9F-5 is slightly too light, but that within margin as every plane is slightly different Your interpretation of the FM files, as I said, is not legit at all. Adding values without understanding the code behind it won't lead to anything. The explanation given on the F9F-8 thread is incorrect, as you added the mass of the engine, which is for sure part of any weight of a plane be it empty, full etc, as per its definition
  58. @Hairy_Frog@MrMaw Vous n'utiliseriez pas le Boris Sound mode par hasard ? Ou êtes vous sur le jeu en "vanilla" ?
  59. Hi Ryan. Thank you for your contribution. Could you just do me a favor and confirm than none of the batch past 37535 was retrofitted with a tunnel turret, nor that any batch prior included in [37035;37193 or 37289;37513] was upgraded with the 8x .50cal nose. Regards, Rapitor
  60. Le 229 casse ses ailes comme tout le monde, il n'est pas pire... Le soucis c'est plutôt que vous pouvez tirer sur le manche et générer 10G quasi instantanément sans boosters etc. (Et même avec d'ailleurd) Mais ceux qui me connaissent savent que je n'ai pas haute opinion du wunder-Franckenstein-ufo 229. Quand à la résistance des ailes, ça n'a pas directement à voir avec le style de jeu de avion. C'est avant tout des normes de chaque pays. Et en jeu, ces normes prennent une importance ridicule, car tous nos pilotes peuvent faire des manœuvres à 7-8-9-10-11G comme si c'était partie intégrale de la d'un pilote. Quitte à briser le mythe, je ne n'ai pas connaissance d'un manuel qui stipule 'attention lors de votre ressource', entre autres car atteindre 7G c'est déjà un miracle. Le ressource automatique des Stuka, c'est pas pour rien qu'elle est de série IRL... Bref, je digresse. Le mieux est bel et bien de faire des vols tests et d'apprendre ses limites. Après, le véritable mieux est de ne pas avoir à plonger à sa vitesse max, que ça soit en attaquant ou en attaqué. Dans tous les cas, c'est une perte d'énergie découlant d'une manœuvre désespérée car très probablement vous avez été surpris par un adversaire que vous avez ignoré.
  61. Hello. Merci pour les fichiers, je vais regarder ça.
  62. Hello. Si ton skin vient du live.warthunder.com, et qu'il bug, il faut que tu contactes son créateur en lui expliquant le problème, avec screens. Si ça se trouve, une nouvelle version est déjà disponible avec le correctif. Les bugs de skins personnalisés, c'est sous la responsabilité de son créateur. Le bug ne vient pas de Gaijin mais du créateur du skin, et ça les devs ne peuvent rien y faire :-) Cordialement, Rapitor
  63. Hey there. Every plane is different, and has its strengths / weaknesses. I do understand that you would like to be able to categorise the planes by their sub-categories. Unfortunately, fighter, heavy fighter, attacker etc is a matter of nation classification. And Gaijin has also its own way to qualify some planes when there is no clear statements. 'Heavy fighter' for instance is generally for Twin engine aircrafts. But that does not mean that all of them are sluggish buses incapable of turning or climbing. Even through a lineage, such as the Bf109 family, there is a huge change between the models B or E and the K ones. Long story short, there is no smart way to split the 200+ fighters of the game into distinct categories. You will have to learn through experience, trial and error. What is important is your flying style. Some planes are great at turning, so others shine somewhere else. A patient pilot might enjoy more 'technical' planes, while an impuslive player, going for the action, might be more favorable to a good turner. And you can always ask on the forum. An mindful question will lead to an informative answer. Regards, Rapitor
  64. In RB, F4U us a great asset to Japanese team. Just like the FW. It basically trades the Almighty turn time of.Japanese planes for speed. It make you very valuable, because when you are fighting some competent pilots, at this tier the A6M speed is so bad that it is almost impossible to get a shot on a US plane not turnfighting. By playing the F4U or the FW, you can simply dive on plane running away and force them to turn, giving your team a chance to catch up with runaway opponents.
  65. Thank you for the detailed computation I will dig into it to see what I can conclude. I would like to comment this. Tech Mod are players with access to Dev and to Gaijin bug report tool. We are not devs and do not have explicit access to code etc. In addition, Gaijin policy about datamining is not to take local value for absolute. Your F-86F-25 example is also controversial. You are summing up numbers from the FM, while I personally do not understand what they all represent. If one of these is a subclass of the other, the addition for instance is not legit. I personally do not datamine, mostly because, as mentioned above, I don't know how to interprete the variables. Unless you can affirm me that your reasoning is 100% compliant with the netcode, please forgive me if I play the devil's advocate, but I do not wish to jump into quick conclusion in a field quite dark to me. Nonetheless, I will have a look and keep you informed. That's what TM are here for.
  66. Best answer highlighted. The pictures are self explanatory. Long story short, speed indicator in a plane relies on the air pressure, which depends on the density of the air. The higher you go, the bigger the difference between what 'feels' the plane (IAS) and what see the guy on the ground (TAS).
  67. Your Bug Report is submitted and a Bug ID has been assigned: 56620 This thread will remain unlocked for 7 days in order to allow anyone with information / evidence / examples to post them. It will also serve as a place where the developers may post questions for you to answer, so please keep up to date here. Thank you for helping us improving the game. Sincerely, Rapitor, for the ™ team
  68. Your Bug Report is submitted and a Bug ID has been assigned: 0056618 This thread will remain unlocked for 7 days in order to allow anyone with information / evidence / examples to post them. It will also serve as a place where the developers may post questions for you to answer, so please keep up to date here. Thank you for helping us improving the game. Sincerely, Rapitor, for the ™ team
  69. Your Bug Report is submitted and a Bug ID has been assigned: 0056617 This thread will remain unlocked for 7 days in order to allow anyone with information / evidence / examples to post them. It will also serve as a place where the developers may post questions for you to answer, so please keep up to date here. Thank you for helping us improving the game. Sincerely, Rapitor, for the ™ team
  70. Hi. I am also hijacking this thread to KotA, same reason as for the F8F-5. Same comment: I believe that the empty mass (on reference provided) does not match the "empty weight" of the model. If you have a more detailed mass list, I can try to identify if there is an issue.
  71. 1 year and a half necro. GG
  72. April fool's joke and future development in the same sentence. That a bold move
  73. Hi. Empty mass is the airframe is different from "empty mass" in the FM files. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturer's_empty_weight The FM files values you linked do not contain any detailed about ammunition, gunnery, "extras", pilot, etc. I believe it is safe to assume that it is "packed" in the current empty mass of the FM files. If you have any more detailed sheet with mass and specs, that would be helpful to determine if there is an issue or not with the mass. Currently, the comparison seems not to be elegit.
  74. Your Bug Report is submitted and a Bug ID has been assigned: 0056614 This thread will remain unlocked for 7 days in order to allow anyone with information / evidence / examples to post them. It will also serve as a place where the developers may post questions for you to answer, so please keep up to date here. Thank you for helping us improving the game. Sincerely, Rapitor, for the ™ team
  75. Hi there. KotA was sick and is currently recovering. I am exceptionally jumping into his BRs and giving a hand processing them. That is good for you, I have the same issue, for every single page in the pdf I downloaded.: @PainGod85 Please attach a screenshot next time, for comparison purpose with picture provided in the manual, to highlight the issue.
  76. Your Bug Report is submitted and a Bug ID has been assigned: 0056613 This thread will remain unlocked for 7 days in order to allow anyone with information / evidence / examples to post them. It will also serve as a place where the developers may post questions for you to answer, so please keep up to date here. Thank you for helping us improving the game. Sincerely, Rapitor, for the ™ team
  77. Hi there. KotA was sick and is currently recovering. I am exceptionally jumping into his BRs and giving a hand processing them. Your link for the manual is not working properly. Here is what I see: I assume that you manual was the following: http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/republic/p-47thunderbolt/aaf-51-127-4-pilot-training-manual-for-the-p-47n-thunderbolt.html as P.31 matches your explanation. Confirmed on D models as well: http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/republic/p-47thunderbolt/an-01-65bc-1a-pilots-flight-operating-instructions-for-p-47d-25-26-27-28-30-and-35-airplanes.html
  78. I emphasized this. Bug reported (ID:0056612), Hotfix is what EE1555 suggests.
  79. Issue is known ID: 56612 reported in parallel. I am locking and moving this thread accordingly The current work around is to go for a test flight with any plane using RBS-132 rockets (or the germans big rockets), set the activation distance to "on impact", launch and exist the flight test. It will solve the issue.
  80. Hi there. As mentioned, KotA is recovering, and I am exceptionally jumping into his BRs and giving a hand processing them. Thanks to the detailed explanation, the bug is 100% of the time reproduced. Your Bug Report is submitted and a Bug ID has been assigned: 0056612 This thread will remain unlocked for 7 days in order to allow anyone with information / evidence / examples to post them. It will also serve as a place where the developers may post questions for you to answer, so please keep up to date here. Thank you for helping us improving the game. Sincerely, The ™ team
  81. T'es passé à côté de la plaque. 3-4m trop à droite je dirais. En supposant le FM (niveau trainée de l'avion) correct, et sa vitesse max en level flight correcte également, sa poussée est nécessairement correcte. Si sa poussée est trop faible pour une trainée et vitesse correctes, on arrive à un cas impossible. Donc si sa poussée est correcte (car vitesse correcte), et que le module indique une poussée incorrecte, c'est une typo.
  82. Hi. I believe the context is unclear and you misinterpreted it. Obviously, on your screen, you have 2 achievements unlocked, side to side. One for tank, one for plane. But the bonus comes from the same category, although the "first" bonus is the same for both tank and planes (as boosters apply to both game mode). You need 2 achievements of the same type to get the bonus. Expect tomorrow to give you 2x the bonus (6th plane, 3rd pair, 6th tank, 3rd pair). Regards, Rapitor.
  83. I do not have any IRL source at hand for level speed of F2A-1 and F2A-3
  84. I think you misunderstand. You shouldn't perform a loop in the first place. You dive, he pulls up, you try a quick shot. Don't follow ever. Follow at 400mph with a Corsair = high G load = bleed speed = you slow down to 109 speed. And he will accelerate faster than you. You should dive, try shot, and run away in a shallow climb to separate. If you are faster, he can't follow straight after his pull up.
  85. Bombers generally bring more SL and fighters more RP. That is not absolute though. In term of profit, the reward/cost of T3 is the most favorable. Playing there should fill your chest with SL. You can also go for Wagers. There are a few that are quite easy, and will grant you with the 500000SL reward.
  86. Hi. The mistake is that you want to follow. You plane is heavy with a lower power/mass ratio. It means you will get caught in an endless loop scenario. Dive on your target, shoot. If it's a success, rinse and repeat. If he survived, use your speed to keep going away (create some seperation), then climb back ti repeat the maneuver. No need to keep the same target. Imagine the F4U like a touring car, running at full speed, and the 109 a sport car going slower, both in a speed circuit. Initially, you might be faster and overtake the opponent, but eventually the sport car will catch up, and even have a lap in advance. So instead of doing the race, leave the stadium before the 109 accelerates.
  87. All of them, due to straight wings, should have a lower VNE. I.e they will rip due to overspeed before you do. For the rest... well let's face it: 262 was a bomber hunter and could do something against ww2 props. But it is not made to fight other fighters.
  88. I am asking for a lock on this thread. There are many claims that make me very uncomfortable, including the fact that someone with a very basic understanding of the physics of flight is trying to defend a point which is wrong, without any proof, and implicitely said that my master degree in fluid mechanics and aerodynamics does not allow me to contest some unfounded and unproven claims.
  89. Thank you for the following Sakuzhi. I finally have clear and defined statement that I can use to base my testing. For P-51D for instance, unsing 67" setting, AUTO engine control (so 100% is actually slightly slower due to rad opening, that's the shift. Within 2% accuracy, depends on human error on my side, based on unique test vs multiple + datareduction and normalisation from NACA From someone that has, for all, put for only equation P = MV, I don't know how to react. Using NACA theory, plane is characterized by 4 forces acting on it: Gravity, thrust, drag and lift. Based on the 4 majors directions. This allow me, based on my aerodynamic courses I had at my University, to estimate planes performances up to +- 2% accuracy, compared to maybe more complex models, for simple maneuvers. If you can't accept this 4 components decomposition, no need to read further, as you obviously were sleeping during physics classes. This thrust - lift - drag - gravity decomposition is also used for nowadays CFD softwares such as Fluent. You think that modeling thrust is easy ? Lift is a simple formula. Drag is a complex formula, due to Cd being part constant and part variable. Thrust is a nightmare. Prop efficiency IG is not simply a coefficient put for x speed y altitude. It is actually modelled in avery complex way, possibly more complexe than Il-2, I don't know. Are you for real blaming devs not to get all factors right in the first shot, when it takes *hundred" of hours for flight engineer to gather, reduce and analyse data? Data sometime not even available for the planes ? Or better, blaming devs for faulty Fm because they never had the proper documentation in the first place ? I will enjoy this one soo much. I did some testing for fun. Go to max speed at WEP (if available), 1000ft, then cut the throttle and keep the altitude. P-51 full fuel (blue) no fuel (red): Obviously, mass has no effect on speed reduction over time, it is a constant ! Better now: Yak-3 (30 min fuel, with first 10 seconds being a fail from me with engine at 6% throttle) vs P-47M, full fuel. P-47 is red. Now, the funny part is that P-47, to achieve the same speed, requires 1100kg of thrust, while Yak-3 requires less than 500kg of thrust, for 2350kg. Obviously, drag is much more important on P-47. Yet, it slows down less ! Aside from first 2 paragraphs being direct attacks, rants, homemade physics based, the 3rd paragraph has been proven wrong by the many IG gathered data above. So, as I assumed in the very first quote I did, mentioning you: Please provide fact for your homemade physics. And I did it for you, and it proved you wrong. LEL. I am laughing hard here. Acceleration and deceleration (because you, de-acceleration is not a thing) are the same thing. Acceleration is Thrust > drag, deceleration is drag > thrust. Thurst is modeled the same for every single plane IG (i.e Thrust = power * prop efficiency / speed), and same goes for drag, being 0.5* air_density * Cd * wing area *speed^2. Cd is the same for every plane IG, being Cd0 (constant) + Cdi (depends on Cl(speed)) + Cdwavedrag (for mach > 0.3 it should be considered). Please, PLEASE bring me an equation to show how acceleration and deceleration are not related, and are 2 different things. Indeed. You are the one assuming you know physics and game engine better than most of use, while your physics level is below highschool level from what I saw. You just discredited yourself in front of anyone with a little knowledge about ACM. E-M theory is the very principle of excess power (aka usable thrust), which basically defines how a plane can accelerate / decelerate at a given speed / G load. Since I provided testing, proofs, and since you cannot provide anything but sentences, without any IG example (you did not even tried to do a barrel roll IG to compared the video), I will consider my contribution here as over. I backed up my claims, you still haven't provided ANY testing, and your majors claims have been discarded. Because that's the whole point here: Rereading the past pages, the only thing I got from you was insults, elusive sentences and statement, a single misused equation, and not a single IG example of broken mechanics. Therefore, since that is not more constructive than a troll, I have no wish continuing this discussion further. enjoy spreading fake claims in this topic. Did Robertorolfo hack you account ?
  90. I skimmed through H_I spreadsheet 2 days ago. I do not see any reason why using acceleration wouldn't work, and it seems to work. But that is only part of the deal. I did not see anywhere a computation for drag or lift. In G turns, Cl increases and so does (Cdi thus Cd). My EM diagram is based on a long and boring process, involving the plane specs (weight, span, wing area), engine specs (power at speed and altitude) to get Cd0, and to compute Cd. Then, I got with my graph plotted with PS = (t-d)/w * v, w being the only constant. I need to make it more 'automated', but I have no time for this yet
  91. The answer was almost given above. Your lagging dot (which BTW can be preceding as well) is the current flypath of you plane. You can also see it in the virtual cockpit view (F4 by default). To illustrate this, imagine that your bomb sight is aligned with the 0° inclination. If the dot-thingy is below, you plane is slightly sinking. Altimeter will prove me right. If you are faster, with an empty bay, you will see the dot above the virtual horizon. And your Altitude will increase. Where the nose points is not where the plane goes. The plane goes where this little dot points.
  92. Do you know what a E-M Diagram is ? Assuming you plane can sustain 3G at 400kmh, doing a 4G barrel roll at that speed will *necessarily* end up with a loss of speed and/or altitude. On the opposite way, doing a 2G barrel roll will end up with a gain in speed and/or altitude. But that theory is a little more complex than P = mv... Which makes no sense. I know it is IMPOSSIBLE for a heavy plane to suffer more than a light plane from equivalent forces. If a heavy airframe decelerate too quickly, it will also accelerate too quickly. And that issue will be aggravated for lighter planes suffering even more. It goes both way. And the first thing you do use for a physical model, " as basic as this one on WT", is Newton laws. Which stands for: F = M*a. so, the only way for a heavy plane to bleed too much is to have a force slowing it down being too strong. This force, mostly drag, is the same for every plane IG. So if the force is too strong for a heavy plane, once again, it is even worse for a lighter plane. Most plane IG can reach expected level speed at altitude, and climb rate, and engine power. If the physics was so bad in game, you couldn't achieve all of that at once, unless you model is a ctually coherent enough.
  93. No, never. It was just people not understanding the difference between instant turn (with energy) and sustained turn. Since they were using (AB or RB) turn with extra speed and pulling 5-6G turns, they were able to outperform the turn time, so they simply assumed that was something else, and went for rudder time turn.
  94. And all Swiss can Ski and are bankers, US American are all fat and voted for current President and French can be summarized by "Omelette du fromage". The only unreliability issue Russia had was during the great industry shift after the German invasion. Hard to keep tight tolerances when half of your industry is constantly on the move, to prevent Germany to lay hand on it. Past the relocation issue, USSR is not less reliable than any nation, that's a common idea spead for whatever reason
  95. This I cannot do, not any game master. About the fix, I have no idea., sorry.
  96. I'll let that insult go. Heavier objects resist changes to their velocity better than light-weigh objects. Aircraft are objects which exist in our universe, therefore they follow the same rules as everyone else. Period, the end. Finally, if you have any experience in -any other- actual simulator that is built from the ground up in real-world physics, you'd realize that this game is wrong. I mean, you are trying to confront me about being accurate while defending a game where aircraft don't even stall correctly, seriously? Great, you can put a simple equation on the board. Congratulation.. However: still no example provided. You know the conservation of momentum. great. There is also the conservation of energy, and non conservative forces and work. Your object is less likely to slow down, but also less likely to accelerate, for an equivalent force applied. And then? I still do not see what is possibly not repsected in WT about this. Words. You claim a broken model, yet I do not see any demonstration of its flaw. So, allow me to repeat myself: What you fail to see is that you still are swimming in the world or unfounded claims, and putting a "P=m*v" vectorial equation is not proving anything. in other words, you are still claming a broken physical models based on nothing. Homemade physics until you provide a tangible exemple. You are right. A barrel roll, by no means, *must* start and end with the same speed / altitude / combination of both
  97. Thank you. I have no fix for you at the moment. ID is known and forwarded with your new details: ID 0048600
  98. Engine weight incorrect has been subject to a BR, ID:0056535 The naming of the BF 110 C-x will be another set of BR. As per your reading, the only Bf-110 C that could carry 500kg bombs and 50kg x8 was the C-7. I will investigate the issue further. Rapitor
  99. A gif is not exactly what I would consider as 'source' especially outside context. :-) Do you mind mine with P—51 vectrorial thrust (#redtails)?
  100. Trick from real pilots : During the approach, min 1-2 km from the airfield, slow down up to your 'descending speed'. Constant speed approach is IMHO the best way to land a plane properly. Slow down the plane, drop flaps, aim for 210-220max, and keep that speed. Too high? Cut the throttle. Too low? Increase the throttle. Keep the speed constant. Adjust attitude (nose up-down) after throttle change, but keep that speed constant. Ideally, you want to approach with full flaps and engine at 0%, as it gives you a steep approach, but also a clear view or the landing strip. A 30% approach works fine as well, but you will be lower (#trees) and with a reduced view of the strip in consequence.
  101. Precisely what I think indeed. I never noticed that bounce chance on sheet, and that might be quite a big bone
  102. These value are steel armor though. I wonder how they apply to aluminum. Well, I have a bone to chew now.
  103. Please provide a physical proof / computation to back up such claim. If you cannot back up this claim, I will ask you to remove it, as your own interpreration of the physics doesn't mean it is the right one. Redoing physics with home made unproven statement is what gave us the famous 'rudder turn time' from ages ago, and I'll fight this.
  104. Bounce mechanic? On a 2-3mm aluminum/plywood sheet? I would somewhat understand such claim for armored steel, but we are talking about aluminum skin here....
  105. Hi. The capability of your plane to RTB depends on the following : Engine temperature, severity of the leak, type of the leak. With an already overheating engine, you obviously make the thing worse. If your engine is 'cool', that's a good start'. In RB (AB doesn't allow you to control the engine): Water leaks can be partially compensated by turning on and off the engine. Full throttle, climb, shut the engine, rinse and repeat. Oil leaks, as mentioned above, are much more an issue. It overheats quicker. Mostly due to friction added to the usual heat of combustion. You can still do the cycle, but you will notice the temp. Increasing faster. The severity of the damage (leak rate) is also important: you can run a few minutes with a small leak, a few seconds with a big one. And if both tanks are leaking / empty, you can try to limp back to base, but I hope you are high. The main problem with water / oil loops is that once they are empty, they act as an insulant (due to the air) instead of a coolant. That makes everything worse.
  106. I believe there might be a mistake in the spreadsheet. I used your yak-3 data with my EM diagram, and found a max PS for about 3.45G at 430kmh, and that is with overestimated CL (thus Cdi thus drag thus PS is underestimated) because I did not take into account thrust helping for lift with AoA > 0. BTW, Ny is the total G, while your chart shows a horizontal G load. With a Ny of 3.8G, you aim at a max 3.66G in your EM graph It could be interesting to check with another plane if you have similar issues.
  107. Thank you for the explanation. Just to confirm: you (computer A) sent an invite to your friend (computer B). Then you logged to B before he logged in A, and accepted your own invite ?
  108. Pour la croix bleu, je n'ai rien à proposer malheureusement. =(
  109. ça va juste alourdir le netcode si tu veux mon avis. Pour la poussée, tu as le navigateur internet en parallèle: http://localhost:8111/ Pour les munitions, les traceurs l'annoncent, certains avions ont un compteur dans le cockpit, et si tu connais (et c'est écrit dans le hangar) les munitions, tu peux savoir quand est-ce que les armes sont vides etc. Personnellement, je ne vois aucun intérêt à avoir les infos détaillées des modules en jeu, car ça ne sert à rien. Ton moteur n'a pas la même puissance / poussée en fonction de l'altitude / vitesse, tes munitions, tu as un compteur en AB / RB, et les dégâts, tu les vois bien. Quand à la masse, une fois en l'air, 4a te fait une belle jambe de savoir le poids =P
  110. Si la Vmax est correct, le moteur est (supposé) modélisé correctement. (Pourquoi serait-il correct à Vmax et non au décollage ?) d'où le fait que je pense que c'est une typo et non pas un soucis de FM
  111. HI The issue is known, thank you ID: 0055258. Moved accordingly
  112. Hi. Can you please tell me since when and how it happened ? Any information (what you did before etc) is welcome In addition, you should not have deleted the .clog, they have nothing to do with the issue. Actually, that is the opposite, I would like to have one from when the issue happened, but I guess that is a lost cause now. You can try to watch a replay from the menu. It sometimes ask you to leave squad and it works (sometime). regards, Rapitor
  113. Hi. Thank you for the report I investigated the issue and checked current in game rpm and power output. The power output and the rpm can be a good indication. Current pélane can reach 2400 (WEP) / 2300 (100%) RPM, which fits the 601-A, not the N, which has a higher revolution per minute (as you linked. Although, I reckon that both power output (IG) and mass indication (module in hangar) are off the chart. I will investigate further and let you know Rapitor
  114. Issue is known. Please do not deleted your 2 pdf files uploaded for now, as they were added to the report. Regards, Rapitor
  115. Thx I'll give it a look when I am home. last time I tried my EM diagram, it was working. EDIT: You will have to wait, I do not have time for this this evening. I see that Hotel_India went for the deriative approach (Es = V^2/2g + Eh), I used the good old "Ps = (T-D/W) *V. I haven't looked into detail yet. I'll just gather some results from a test flight, use my E-M diagram, and see where it might go wrong / well
  116. In AB, .50 doesn't fit the meta. Quick turns, snapshots, enhanced DM, overwhelming armament from the opposition: .50 are just not made for it. In RB/SB, you can have a longer time on target, and a 1sec burst will do good. Don't expect a OS-kill with .50 though
  117. I do not know for Forged / welded bombs (well, that''s a different metal for sure), but explosive content (normalised in TNT) depends on the bomb design and the chemical payload. 2 bombs from 2 different contries, with the same weight, will not have the same chemical payload (weight / components) therefore different TNT value.
  118. Merci. Effectivement, on a du Tenkū no shiro Rapyuta sur certaines maps. Je check si c'est connu ou pas
  119. Hello. Je suis désolé, je ne vois pas de quoi tu parles, je vois des unités partout
  120. Hello. Je n'ai pas souvenir que les x-rays doivent actuellement afficher le détail des modules en jeu. ça a pour but de montrer les éléments aux hangars, et une représentation visuelle des dégâts en jeu.
  121. Hello. The Ki-45 is considered as a heavy fighter. It has the fighter reload time in AB matches. Test flight is different, to allow player to test things.
  122. Moi non plus. Mais c'est la procédure. Comme dit, j'ai passé outre et fait mon propre clog pour faire passer la chose.
  123. What is your Ps value for 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3etc G ? (you can PM)
  124. My knowledge iso more about aerodynamics, and ACM that current missile warfare. Although I believe that you misinterpreted my comment. The best way to avoid a missile (aside from ECM and flares) is to turn at corner speed. We agree on this and you emphasized it. The turn radius is bound to the square of the speed, that's the reason behind it. Which leads me to the following statements: -At this level, to have a stall speed of 120kts or 140its, it makes no big difference. -the faster the missile, the easier to make it overshoot. Mostly because missile turn radius and thrust >> plane at equivalent speed. Missile rate of closure reduces the pilot 'preparation' time, but makes the missile more prone to overshoot. -A slow plane, although you believe it as more nimble, is actually an easier target. Missiles are not human and won't be annoyed by small quick turns. The quicker the turns, the less the average change in mean flypath. IE less energy loss for the missile while you bled like hell in you plane. So, back to my initial comment: If you requires a high thrust and vectorial thrust, you are already likely so slow that you are in deep trouble already. Yes, indeed, it will provide you a nice AoA by preventing stall due to thrust. But that only mean that you are very slow for a Jet. Therefore an easy target, V-trust or not. Missile vs plane is not different from a Spitfire dodging a FW BnZing. If the spit has energy, he will avoid it, if the spit is slow, the FW will land a hit.
  125. Çà je peux affirmer que non. Jamais les N n'ont été arrondi, c'est un facteur de conversion qui est utilisé. Après, s'ils utilisent 9.81, 9.8, 9.805, 9.8xyz, aucune idée
  126. Parcours les posts et tu trouveras la solution.
  127. I would disagree. Nowadays, missile does not even require you to aim / point toward the opponent, and lock cannot be dodged by dogfighting like in TOP gun. You just want a powerful engine and v-thrust for the cool side of it. That won't give you any advantage though.
  128. Hello. Tu peux vérifier tes settings graphiques et les baisser un peu pour voir une amélioration. Tu peux également me paser ton DxDiag, je suppose que tes drivers ne sont pas à jours
  129. Hello. Le mieux est de mettre WT (et tout autre jeu en ligne) dans les exceptions, à partir du dossier racine. à faire aussi avec le pare-feu pour la forme. Rapitor
  130. Hello. Je pense à une typo. J'ai testé le FM du F-84 (moi) et la vitesse au niveau de la mer est correcte, en accord avec la SAC summary sheet. Je pense que les 3750lb ont été convertie (après typo en 3570lb) en 1620kgf au lieu de 1700kgf Je laisse passé ce BR, mais je te rappelle quand même que le .clog est souhaité, avec un screen pour illustré