The Flight Model Thread

[RSphil]

Originally Posted by Bravix

That's probably because there aren't any aircraft like these in real life

I really don't have any major gripes with the flight model. I wish ascending was slower and descending was faster (gravity is a bitch) but there isn't a whole lot I'd change.

It's important to keep in mind that, in real life, these aircraft would never fly. Except maybe the Scythe, cause it uses funky space-magic. Mosquito and Reaver don't, however. They supposedly just use aerodynamics....which is bull because, again, these things wouldn't fly. Not in the way the game presents them at least. There would always need to be a downward thrust to keep these things up, because those pitiful excuses for wings certainly wouldn't create enough lift to hold the aircraft up.

not 100% imo. the stealth fighter should not fly but can due to computers and the vtol has been around for year thanks to us brits being nuts lol.
i recon they are good aircraft and if looked at closely could be around soon if we wanted. i think it was the lockheed star fighter had very small wings also

but i agree, not many problems with the flight model. i actually like it but dont fly much as not keen on mouse and keyboard controls. plus i need to mod my Reaver a little to the way i like it and for the different situations i'll be using it for

[Bravix]

Originally Posted by RSphil

not 100% imo. the stealth fighter should not fly but can due to computers and the vtol has been around for year thanks to us brits being nuts lol.
i recon they are good aircraft and if looked at closely could be around soon if we wanted. i think it was the lockheed star fighter had very small wings also

but i agree, not many problems with the flight model. i actually like it but dont fly much as not keen on mouse and keyboard controls. plus i need to mod my Reaver a little to the way i like it and for the different situations i'll be using it for

"The Stealth Fighter"? Which stealth fighter. All of them that I know of have aerodynamic wings and bodies.

And yes there is VTOL. I never argued that there wasn't. The problem is that the wings on these aircraft wouldn't create enough lift to hold the aircraft up in straight and level flight. The engines would constantly have to be applying a downward thrust to keep these things in the air.

You might be able to make a case for the Mosquito, but you'll never see anything like the Reaver in real life. That thing is about as aerodynamic as a semi truck.

[RSphil]

Originally Posted by Bravix

"The Stealth Fighter"? Which stealth fighter. All of them that I know of have aerodynamic wings and bodies.

And yes there is VTOL. I never argued that there wasn't. The problem is that the wings on these aircraft wouldn't create enough lift to hold the aircraft up in straight and level flight. The engines would constantly have to be applying a downward thrust to keep these things in the air.

You might be able to make a case for the Mosquito, but you'll never see anything like the Reaver in real life. That thing is about as aerodynamic as a semi truck.

there is only one stealth fighter, the f117 nighthawk. the stealth bomber is a wing so i pass that one lol ( which isnt a sstealthy as they think as we picked it up on radar at an airshow in the uk, keep that between us though lol ) the stealth fighter's wings are very short and the body is not as aerodynamic as people think. the whole thing is very unstable and if they did not have computers controlling it the thing is impossible to fly.

as for the little wings bit did you look at the starfighter? i recon the wings in game are around the same length.

the Reaver is not far off the apache in design and that has to be aerodynamically sound to fly weather its a helo or a plane the principle still applies when it comes to the body. id say the Reaver wouldnt be as fast as it is in the game but i think we could make it fly with todays tech not to mention the tech in the game

technically semi trucks are aerodynamic. they flow through it with some form of ease and though not very efficient they get ok fuel consumption lol. but i get where you are coming from

[Bravix]

Originally Posted by RSphil

the Reaver is not far off the apache in design and that has to be aerodynamically sound to fly weather its a helo or a plane the principle still applies when it comes to the body. id say the Reaver wouldnt be as fast as it is in the game but i think we could make it fly with todays tech not to mention the tech in the game

Don't have time to respond to everything, have an appointment I gotta run to...

But no, just no. I don't think you understand the differences between how heli's/aircraft fly and the complaints I'm making.

The apache doesn't rely on (fixed) wings to provide lift. The Reaver (while in straight and level flight) does. The only time I can fantasize it ever staying afloat is when those engines are pointed towards the ground, at which point it's effectively a helicopter that uses thrust vectoring instead of traditional methods.

[Miffy]

I want the hover turn to be faster and then I'll be happy.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Miffy

I want the hover turn to be faster and then I'll be happy.

That's what got us in the mess of Aircraft in the first one.

[Miffy]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

That's what got us in the mess of Aircraft in the first one.

Aircraft were never OP in Planetside lol, that game sucked for being a pilot. All I ever had was the lock on noise and flak constantly. I mean MAX Unit AA was so powerful and MAX units didn't suck like they do in Planetside 2 so lots of people used them.

All you had to have one was AA MAX to protect a base in Planetside.

[Ghoest9]

Originally Posted by Bravix

That's probably because there aren't any aircraft like these in real life

But their never could be.

Its not that these aircraft are behaving weird due to unusual amounts of of power or an unusual ability to vector the power. Several things that take place(or perhaps more accurately dont take place)could only happen with magic.


The aircrafrt in PS1 were not trealistic at all either - but they felt real as you were sitting on a super highly vectorable powerful engine.

[Miffy]

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

But their never could be.

Its not that these aircraft are behaving weird due to unusual amounts of of power or an unusual ability to vector the power. Several things that take place(or perhaps more accurately dont take place)could only happen with magic.


The aircrafrt in PS1 were not trealistic at all either - but they felt real as you were sitting on a super highly vectorable powerful engine.

Their?

[Ghoest9]

Originally Posted by Miffy

Aircraft were never OP in Planetside lol, that game sucked for being a pilot. All I ever had was the lock on noise and flak constantly. I mean MAX Unit AA was so powerful and MAX units didn't suck like they do in Planetside 2 so lots of people used them.

All you had to have one was AA MAX to protect a base in Planetside.

Appearently you didnt actually play PS1 or only did so for a brief time.

Early on Reaver had excellent missiles and pretty much owned the entire battlefield against everything. but it wasnt long before that was nerfed.

Then later on people became extremely good at using Mossies against infantry(some using aimers some just good shots) to the point that it was suicide to go outside a base without a vehicle - and eventually they had to add change some game elements in response.

[Juryrig]

Originally Posted by RSphil

as for the little wings bit did you look at the starfighter? i recon the wings in game are around the same length.

Short stubby wings with little wing area work fine, as long as you can go fast enough. Top speed on these things is, what, a couple of hundred kmh? 150mph or so? Those wings wouldn't offer much lift at that speed, unless (a) they're thick (high drag) or (b) the body is contributing (as in the F117, or space shuttle).

The fact that they've got vectored thrust pretty much changes the rules, however. Assuming you've got some kind of futuristic power plant that produces enough thrust, you can make it any shape you like and it'll fly.

Granted, in level flight the Reaver in game looks like all the thrust is being directed backwards, but it wouldn't take much thrust being bled off and vectored downwards to make up for the lack of wing.

Anyway, this is just aircraft nerding....actual performance of the aircraft in game makes them feel more like helicopters to me.

[RSphil]

Originally Posted by Bravix

Don't have time to respond to everything, have an appointment I gotta run to...

But no, just no. I don't think you understand the differences between how heli's/aircraft fly and the complaints I'm making.

The apache doesn't rely on (fixed) wings to provide lift. The Reaver (while in straight and level flight) does. The only time I can fantasize it ever staying afloat is when those engines are pointed towards the ground, at which point it's effectively a helicopter that uses thrust vectoring instead of traditional methods.

ok ok. though the apache dose not use fixed wings it uses lots of little wings. i understand fully how aircraft work as i have been round them all my life. my dad worked for British aerospace and helped build things like the concord, tornado, jaguar and the first EAP which was the prototype for the Eurofighter today. i also have done stuff at collage for aerodynamics ect. and the odd job when i was an engineer.

the wings on most of the aircraft in game are id say ok. bar the Gal. with no Winglets it has no aid for lift. Winglets make shorter wings viable. i noticed the lib has them so thats ok. the smaller aircraft with the stub wings will act like the starfighter.
so the Gal and scythe are the 2 id say would not be able to fly. but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[RSphil]

Originally Posted by Juryrig

Short stubby wings with little wing area work fine, as long as you can go fast enough. Top speed on these things is, what, a couple of hundred kmh? 150mph or so? Those wings wouldn't offer much lift at that speed, unless (a) they're thick (high drag) or (b) the body is contributing (as in the F117, or space shuttle).

The fact that they've got vectored thrust pretty much changes the rules, however. Assuming you've got some kind of futuristic power plant that produces enough thrust, you can make it any shape you like and it'll fly.

Granted, in level flight the Reaver in game looks like all the thrust is being directed backwards, but it wouldn't take much thrust being bled off and vectored downwards to make up for the lack of wing.

Anyway, this is just aircraft nerding....actual performance of the aircraft in game makes them feel more like helicopters to me.

lol yup we are all nerds tbh. i like how they fly. not got the full pack on my Reaver yet so not sure how the yaw is as people wish it was faster. seems ok to me. just want full joystick control instead of the mess they have now.

[RSphil]

Originally Posted by Miffy

I want the hover turn to be faster and then I'll be happy.

do you have full performance certs? i think its in that one. i only have 1 and the hover turn is ok. need to get full though as i like hovering and shooting troops

[Juryrig]

Originally Posted by RSphil

my dad worked for British aerospace and helped build things like the concord, tornado, jaguar and the first EAP which was the prototype for the Eurofighter today. .

He'd have been at the back end of his career just as I started mine, then. Was he at Warton? I did 2 years on Tornado (the GR4/mid life update programme), 2 years on EFA (Eurofighter Typhoon as it became) and three years in R&D.

It was a lot less exciting than it sounds, mind you.

The 'wings' on an Apache are just there to hang weapons on, IIRC - they make them wing shaped just 'cos it reduces drag. *waits to be corrected by a helicopter geek - I admit to knowing bugger all about rotary wing aircraft*