Real shatter 1.0.....2.0....3.0?

Game Discussion General Discussion
,
491

Does make sense, they have to work in opposite directions on the ailerons. Also this you would only be able to find in the maintenance manual, not flight manual.

I know someone who works on Bearcats (among others), so I asked him just now, pending answer.

But, typically there’s a swivel point in the middle to which both rods are connected. This is balanced as they both pull on each other. Damage to one of the sides will uneven that balance and the pilot would have to compensate for this… in a system which is supported by hydraulics this would be “ok”, but when one relies on muscle power, this will be an issue. How much of a pull this would be, would depend on airspeed (pressure on the aileron). I’m not sure how much of a critical failure it would be when a single side breaks, but I asked.

@DerGrafVonZahl @berezenboi

Me: How are the aileron control cables attached on the bearcat, is it like a swifle point in the middle of the fuselage connecting to both cables across the wings?

Him: Not cables, push pull rods and bellcranks

Him: The stick connects to a torque tube which extends in front of the firewall to an upside down Y

Me: Oh I see

Him: And that links up to push pull rods that extend along the front of the forward spar through the wheel wells, through the inner wing, out to the ailerons

Me: If one side breaks, how would that influence control, would it be critical in a sense that he will kiss the ground, or just reduce roll rate but otherwise fine?

Him: I don’t know. You would probably still be able to control the other aileron, assuming it didn’t break in a way that’ll jam the linkage, so you’d have some roll control

Him: But the aileron that broke could just start fluttering violently

Me: Not good for the wing I suppose

Him: Yup

So, some control should LIKELY still be there if a single side breaks. What Gaijin’s interpretation is, is up to Gaijin. @berezenboi is kind of right that they aren’t fully dependent on each other, given damage to 1 of these rods didn’t jam/destroy the other in the process, and this fluttering flap wouldn’t tear the already damaged wing off the plane.

Picture:

image
image1920×1440 375 KB

Detail:
image

492

That is what I was getting at. If the rod in one wing is damaged, the other aileron should be able to function. Also, the fact that your friend works on a bearcat is awesome. Maybe gaijin will finally fix its engine horsepower now that they have a primary source lol

1 Like
493

He’s been bitching about the Bearcat FM for ages lol, I doubt :)

494

there is a bug report on the 34w engine producing the wrong brake and ram air horsepower that has been lying around for 2 years:

And not only that, now the bearcat cant even reach its stated top speed of 420 mph at sea level, now it tops out at 403. and don’t get me started on its rudder

1 Like
495

Did the severe damage mechanic get axed? because this might be the solution to most of the issues with tails and wings flying off, while still preventing arcade from falling apart

496

I mean, Metra is a tech mod now, so dunno, maybe he can push it himself… @Metrallaroja

Bearcat model has been controversial since forever, but it’s just part of a long list of BS FMs anyway. Heck, even Gaijin got to the point they just publicly announce tweaks to FMs for balance reasons… ie- see their changes and announcements on the Gripen, F15, F16, and so on. So I doubt they still give a heck, especially when its about props

497

I mean jet wise, they are running out of content. A lot of jets ingame are still in active service. So its gonna be interesting to see how far they get before they run into the problem of required information being classified

498

Id love to see the F4U-5 Corsair in-game. given they fix the oscillating issues, it would be a nightmare for most props. (The corsair should not oscillate at high speed. The only props that it was a problem were the D model Mustangs and early bubble top P-47s. The corsair has a large spinal ridge, so it should be fairly stable in a dive)

1 Like
499

That’s when they need to take the DCS route and work with actual pilots to fly their planes for validation, or, just “wing it” – which seems more likely for Gaijin to do

500

either way its gonna be interesting

501

Oh i think you misread. I didn’t mean that the cables for elevators and aileronsnare interconnected but that the aileron cables go through both wings so that they move in unison. Jam one and the othe is jammed as well

1 Like
502

I think the big thing that needs to take precedence in air RB above all else is that we need way more match variety. That’s why I’m really like Sim EC right now. If I want to play a bomber I can chill out and go play a fighter. If I feel like hitting ground targets I can go play an attacker. If I feel like getting stomped by competent pilots I go play fighters. The big thing that killed air RB EC was the lack of players. Given the fact that the game has more than quadrupled in player count and it would give a good reason to have multiple plane slots, something like it could really freshen up air

503

I was thinking more in the case of warthunder, where cables don’t get jammed, only destroyed.

504

I also think a talk needs to be had on how rounds are behaving in-game. Because right now, it just feels like every 20/23mm cannon shell is behaving like a mineshell. When referencing “A” kills and “B” kills in war thunder, keep in mind that the Optimum Caliber Program document specifies that an “A” kill is something that causes a plane to crash within 5 minutes, and a “B” kill is something that causes a plane to crash within two hours.

505

Sure, WT is a mess.

As seen in the old Screenshot things used to be very different.

Cables became inoperable/damaged all the time. People got angry why they lost control of their wings or tail even though their fuselage got hit from the front. There were lots of complaints and since the kills weren’t immidiate, there was a lot of people going after doomed planes for easy kills (killstealing) instead of playing objectives.

So this got changed to the all or nothing approach we have now. Damage to control mechanisms almost never happens, they are usually destroyed outright. But the entire event was made much rarer then before. Damage and destruction of the mechanisms used to happpen all the time at the beginning of WT.

506

But also keep in mind that WT needs to condense this into 15-45 Matches. So deaths are accelerated.

A plane that is doomed and defenseless for 5 Minutes would create the situation where everyone will try to go for it for the killsteal.

You can see this in AB with the new fire mechanics that burn for way longer before the plane is finally counted as a kill. People go out of their way to attack burning planes. This results in a worse gaming experience. Now crank that up to 11 and you have an idea how WT was in early to mid 2013.

1 Like
507

thats fair, at least for B kills

508

Kinda how they changed that transmission no longer catch fires for ground vehicles :D

I also didn’t like it but nowadays I think it’s kinda dumb when transmission act as a ton of extra armor and should be able to catch fire when struck by an AP round.

However that was also at the time when T-34s could bounce a 128mm 50% of the time with their front armor.

So often what players want is just the result of the current meta and imbalanced between vehicles.

When some nations guns don’t destroy planes while they work fine for another, player demand the same treatment.
Instead of fixing the problem in a realistic fashion, Gaijin just cranks up some values until players are happy.

If APHE damage is completely unrealistic, AP damage also needs to be way higher then possible.

If 12.7mm AP can knock out pilots through 8mm of armor from 1km, 20mm cannons need to destroy planes just as easily or there would be no point of 20mm cannons over 12.7mm Armor Piercing Flamethrowers.

And so on.

1 Like
509

Don’t forget the major issue with precision: parallax error and lack of convergence. The third-person view is almost never aligned with the turret sight, and the distance between the turrets is sometimes as wide as three times the wing span of a fighter. Trying to kill something within 200 meters in a BV-238 is quite a challenge.

510

Problem with bomber gunners (multiple gunners on the same plane) is that instead of aiming individually at a target at a distance, they all just converge at a set distance that you can’t control. They should make it so that you can select a target (f.e. through the already existing setting “Lock Target”) and gunners would individually aim at that distance. But then again, this may make bomber gunners very stupid strong.