Ivans Corsairs

Ivans P47's

Ivan,
I have the P47D-23 and P47D-27. The 27 loads fine, the 23 can not show visual model. I have checked the alias's to panel and sound. All the files Air, dp ect. seem to be included in the D/L from this site. Could you D/L the package and see if you encounter the same problem?

Dave www.thefreeflightsite.com
 
Hi No Dice,

The Corsair that is hosted here is VERY old. I have a couple Work in Progress Corsairs that are much better models than the ones here, but definitely not in a releasable condition. I can send you alpha version you can check out but I would prefer you do not set those up for distribution.

The hangup right now is that I am doing some research into proper values for DP files. The stock ones don't hardly make sense. The weights for ammunition in the DP files are only for the bullet and not the entire cartridge. Strangely enough, the 1% spreadsheets show the same thing (projectile weight only) which NO ONE seems to have caught. Hubbabubba and I discussed this in another thread a few months ago.

Cartridge and Link weight for ammunition is incredibly hard to find. I am tempted to make a Smithsonian data request as I have done in the past for other data. For the .50 BMG, I took a simple step: Complete round weight is easy to find, so I bought some links at a gun show and weighed 20 of them. I also had at least one round of Lake City .50 Cal BMG to weigh. Turns out that the Book "America's Hundred Thousand" by Francis Dean shows a lot of the information for USAAF planes which is in fairly close agreement to what I found though not consistent between planes.

The Fokker Eindecker I recently uploaded has a DP file that assumes the use of cloth MG belts. The disposable part is the round weight which doesn't really account for a disintegrating link.

The P-47D-27 is actually very close to releasable form. The P-47D-23 isn't yet. I did all my AIR file corrections for the D-27. The D-23 hasn't even been performance tested.

Perhaps I can find a better solution....
- Ivan.
 
Hope you don't mind if I post it here also. I more or less consider this place my home as far as Flight Sims go. Seems like all the older Library stuff got lost. I will see if I can recover others also.

- Ivan.
 
Ivan said:
Hope you don't mind if I post it here also. I more or less consider this place my home as far as Flight Sims go. Seems like all the older Library stuff got lost. I will see if I can recover others also.

- Ivan.
Click to expand...

Hi Ivan,

The archives are in shamble, thanks to the great SOH meltdown of a few years ago. Some of my stuff is posted twice because I reloaded after communicating with SOH administrators. They eventually recuperated some of their olds archives, hence the double downloads posts. Geeesh...:173go1:
 
i am sorry to say that, imho,
CFS downloads are the lowest of the low
on the SOH Library list of priorities.
as far as i'm concerned,
it's a real shame that so many fine creations
are no longer offered here.

yeah, sure, we may be old
and few and far between,
but that doesn't mean
that we don't have feelings
or care about our sim.

-------------:kilroy:-------------
just watch, i'll probably get into it
up to my elbows for saying that.
so it goes
 
Smilo, no reason for you to take heat over that, you are the best moderator this joint has.
I will gladly host anything that ya'll feel is missing in the CFS1 collection. I am not made of time, But will consider all suggestions and get em' up when I can. I attempt to add a few things daily, so check it out every so often.

Dave

www.thefreeflightsite.com
 
i'm sure the guys are glad to have
an easily accessible location for their work.
although, it would seem that it
could/should be done here.
i don't know, maybe it's just me,
but i have a heck of a time
finding anything around this place.
needless to say, it gets a bit frustrating
when one has to go to another site,
just to get something by a soh regular.
oh well, so it goes.

as for being the best moderator,
thanks for the vote of confidence,
but, i gotta say, that's funny stuff.
i'm sure you could get
a good debate going on that one.
 
Smilo,
Just consider the Free Flight Sight as another arm to the SOH, Kind of a payback. Many years ago when the Free Flight Site was in everyones list of favorites I did not have the bandwidth for many of my larger downloads, so Canelo ( CFC now SOH ) hosted them for me.

As far as the debate about best moderator, send it on , I am more than ready and have lots of ammo.

Dave

www.thefreeflightsite.com
 
Hi Smilo,

I will see what I can do about a more current release of a P-47D-23. There is a fair amount of tweaking that needs to be done first, so that won't be a very quick one. If you just want SOMETHING, I can upload what I sent No Dice, but I can tell you that although that is better than what was here originally, it is not what I consider release quality.

Regarding Corsairs, I did some testing night before last on using a P-47 Fuel Gauge and it appears to work. There is now no way to see what the contents of the wing tanks, but that was how the real plane worked.

Now, in reworking DP files, do you folks think the 1% stuff makes more sense or the stock values? I am tending toward the 1% hit points.

For a .50 Caliber BMG, stock says 14D1. 1% says 18D1. With my recent release of the Fokker Eindecker, I used neither source. The stock 7.92 mm MG says 10D1, the 1% folks say 3D1, I picked 8D1 because I believe there is little difference in hitting power with rifle caliber cartridges.

Opinions anyone?
- Ivan.
 
don't rush a release on my account.
do it when you are happy
with you're project...not before.

as for the DPs;
if the 1% solution
meets your standards,
then use it.
if it doesn't...don't.
it all boils down to what you think
is most accurate for your project.
as you know, all to well,
the stock values leave much to be desired.
 
Ivan

I think the 1% damage was calculated on the energy carried in the bullet. The problem of using a range of damage from 3 for the .303 round to 10 for a .50 round is that it depends if the bullet goes clean through the plane or if it hits a component and thereby expends all its energy.

I think the 1% dp file allowed for this by having components (eg wing or tail, rear fuselage etc) contain a lot of nothing, ie a part which can be hit and absorbs a lot of damage-points without itself being damaged or destroyed. This mimics a round going clean through the plane without causing any damage.

Dave
 
Hi Dave,
The 1% stuff is based on the opinions of Emmanuel Gustin and Anthony Williams, but you already know that. The damage is based on momentum (rather than energy) and a chemical component. The emphasis on chemical damage is consistent with a very soft fragile target, but it is an opinion.

The accumulation of these statistics for the 1% Data was also rather inconsistent. Besides the obvious typos, some obvious distinctions were not made such as the different types of Russian UB machine guns, the different versions of Japanese Type 99-2 cannon and such. They also made the same mistake as the CFS folks did in that the weights of each round were the projectile weight only rather than cartridge and link weight as the table heading states.

The Germans kept statistics on how many hits of various calibers it took on the average to down a particular type of aircraft. The problem is that in CFS, the hitting power of guns is significantly worse than these statistics. Back in the 714th days, I believe the conclusion was that gun damage was only about 1/3 of what it should have been.

As stated a few times in the past, I believe I have worked out a reasonable compromise to reduce effectiveness of bomber guns by reducing their ranges based on quality of mounts and aiming equipment.

The trick now is to decide whether the DP files in stuff I am building will be consistent with stock aircraft or better reflect historical results. I believe the end result will be something of a compromise.

- Ivan.
 
I recently put in several more hours of work on a F4U-1 Birdcage Corsair. The replacement fuel gauge seems to work reasonably well. I did the typical SCASM Virtual Cockpit thing and Collision Bubble modification and also switched all the textures to BMP files.

I still need to mess with the Check List a bit more and change the Read Me. Near as I can tell, this plane has been around in this appearance since about 2007 or so..... Some things are not going to get fixed in this pass: The plane is too fat, the Cowl opening is too wide and the cutouts for the quarter windows do not exist.

Still, I think it is fairly pretty.
- Ivan.
 
I decided to reduce the range of default planes so that all my planes are consistent. 500 yds is more than enough for all of my guns, fighters and bombers.

I think that the 1% idea was correct in that the guns all have a consistent range of performance. I'm not an expert in calculating the relative destruction power of different rounds but some ranking can be made so that small calibre are less destructive than bigger rounds. Damage profiles then have to be consistent across all planes - I've seen an Italian bomber that I couldn't shoot down despite getting close and putting all my bullets into a wing.

I know that the 1% figure for .303 is very low - I really have to work at placing my shots to get enough hits to break the plane; a quick burst into a 109 engine slows it down a lot and I've managed to shoot down 5 109s with this low hitting power.


Dave
 
Hi Minuteman10,

Thanks for the compliment. I like this plane too. It isn't the most agile, it isn't the fastest, but the combination isn't bad which I believe was true of the original as well.
The plane is a bit too fat, but that is because the drawings I used were not all that accurate. I have better drawings now (by Paul Matt) but don't have the wish to redo this airplane.


Hi Dave,

AI marksmanship is to a very high standard. Basically, if they shoot, you will get hit.

You are a shooter also, so you probably have thought of this a bit. If I was firing a rifle offhand at 200 yards, I am certain I could hit a car with every shot. If the car was moving and I was also, I am not sure I would hit it reliably even with a machine gun from offhand.

A swivel gun with a ring and bead sight seems to me to have the same ease of use. I give them a 200 to 300 yard range in the DP files. A powered turret often has a good reflector gunsight. I figure it should have a 500 yard range just as fighter armament does. The gun effectiveness is still too high, but at least this gives a fighter an even chance against something like a B-17.

- Ivan.
 
Ivan,
I love it, BUT some 'black mail" is in order here,
If The Free Flight Site does not get the first release " I am going to email "Anna Honey" your post and how you exposed her age! Check and Check Mate !!

Love your work and hope that being Mr. MoM this week is not driving you up the walls. Happy belated
Mothers Day to " Anna Honey".

Signed,
One of your biggest fans

Dave

www.thefreeflightsite.com :salute:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top