PDA

View Full Version : Navigation by ded reckoning



Tully__
07-24-2004, 08:51 AM
I've seen a number of people asking about long range navigation by ded reckoning so I thought I'd give it a try. On the GoF map (Leningrad) I set up a mission taking off from Helsinki and landing at a reasonably obscure field some way south east of Leningrad. The destination was next to a small town, so reasonably easy to spot of I got close.

The results, after 51 minutes at 300km/h IAS & 5000m, 8.35km off target (about 6km south and about 4km overshoot). Navigation was entirely precalculated for climb to 5000m, set up on heading 106 directly over takeoff field @ 300km/h IAS, fly bearing 106 degrees @ 300km/h IAS for 51 minutes and I should be directly over the target.

I had icons, map icons & minimap path turned off and didn't check for landmarks until the clock hit the 51 minute mark. Altitude deviation was less than +/- 600feet (have to keep it fairly close to the intended alt or TAS varies too much http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) and speed deviation was less then 10km/h through most of the trip. Heading variation was less than +/- 4 degrees and for most of the trip less than +/- 2 degrees.

Once at the target, it took me about 30 seconds to find how far out of line I was.

When flying this sort of navigation for carrier missions I would plan the mission slightly differently. Ships tend to be a bit hard to see from 5km up so cruise altitude would be lower, at least for the final 30km or so. This would allow the pilot to spend the last 5 minutes looking for the ship rather than hoping he hasn't overshot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

If anyone is interested I would be happy to put up an explanation of working out the navigation. It's actually easier in the game than in real life as the maps are flat (unlike the earth which is round) making distance and direction calculations much easier. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

Tully's X-45 profile (SST drivers) (http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/fb.zip)

Salut
Tully

Tully__
07-24-2004, 08:51 AM
I've seen a number of people asking about long range navigation by ded reckoning so I thought I'd give it a try. On the GoF map (Leningrad) I set up a mission taking off from Helsinki and landing at a reasonably obscure field some way south east of Leningrad. The destination was next to a small town, so reasonably easy to spot of I got close.

The results, after 51 minutes at 300km/h IAS & 5000m, 8.35km off target (about 6km south and about 4km overshoot). Navigation was entirely precalculated for climb to 5000m, set up on heading 106 directly over takeoff field @ 300km/h IAS, fly bearing 106 degrees @ 300km/h IAS for 51 minutes and I should be directly over the target.

I had icons, map icons & minimap path turned off and didn't check for landmarks until the clock hit the 51 minute mark. Altitude deviation was less than +/- 600feet (have to keep it fairly close to the intended alt or TAS varies too much http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) and speed deviation was less then 10km/h through most of the trip. Heading variation was less than +/- 4 degrees and for most of the trip less than +/- 2 degrees.

Once at the target, it took me about 30 seconds to find how far out of line I was.

When flying this sort of navigation for carrier missions I would plan the mission slightly differently. Ships tend to be a bit hard to see from 5km up so cruise altitude would be lower, at least for the final 30km or so. This would allow the pilot to spend the last 5 minutes looking for the ship rather than hoping he hasn't overshot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

If anyone is interested I would be happy to put up an explanation of working out the navigation. It's actually easier in the game than in real life as the maps are flat (unlike the earth which is round) making distance and direction calculations much easier. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

Tully's X-45 profile (SST drivers) (http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/fb.zip)

Salut
Tully

heywooood
07-24-2004, 08:56 AM
Tully.... The X MOD

Nicely done... yes dead reckoning is good in FB.



http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/ac_32_1.jpg
"Check your guns"

Fliger747
07-24-2004, 10:46 AM
In real life ships are quite easy to spot from 5,000, m (bout FL 200) presuming they are not hiding under a cloud. Because of the low scattered to broken cloud bases often found over the Pacific, searches by PBY's etc. were often flown at low altitude (eg. 1500')

The big variables are if the carrier is going to be at "point option" when you return and the winds aloft. In a plane crusing at say, 160 kts, a 30 knot wind makes a big diference! Ships would send up weather balloons to make estimates, however many skippers discouraged this as it of course provided a visible clue to the presence of the ships, possibly to be seen from some distance.

Sounds like a good excersize, one from which everyone could learn much.

Droopsnoot
07-24-2004, 11:04 AM
Suppose you departed for your carrier after a furball session, from an unknown position, and your carrier had been steaming all the while, after you left it?

Can you work an interception calculation?

Is the chart you used based on lat/long or is it the silly grid that they have been using?

I do not fly FB so I don't know what the scale of the map is, thus how you meassure distances. (The US Navy used blank Mercators with their plotting boards in WWII.) Is there any wind? Any variation? Is TAS calculated on standard day lapse rate in this sim?

Do you have to convert from meters of altitude to feet to find flight level temperature for TAS calculations? The E6b is set up on feet, Knots and Nautical miles, as you no doubt know.

What navigation habits do I need to unlearn? Or do I just have to convert a lot of stuff to get everything over into the same terms as RL navigation uses?

The grid maps are "for the birds" not for fast flying aircraft, flying long distances over water, in my opinion.

I think they should use standard navigation charts and instrumentation, not grids and the metric system for PF.

VF-3Thunderboy
07-24-2004, 11:37 AM
What would be very nice is a calculator that would calcualte the same type of "data" for Nav, but just plug in the "numbers", so to speak. It gets complicated as you have to figure time elapsed (in combat) and estimate of location if only over the ocean. It would need to be automated to some degree if they can even do it, which I doubt.You could have a plotting board come up, but with windows for plugging in the #s, for auto calculation.

Pilots would fly LOW because the wind variation is less under 1000ft.

Also, grid type map would be helpful, to plot carrier course.

I have actual Navy WW2 Navigation books in the mail, on the way. I may post some of this stuff.

Farkitt_
07-24-2004, 12:14 PM
Did you adjust TAS from IAS when you flew higher? and 8 km isn't that far off after 51 mins. But Generally you would look for landmarks inbetween that time yes? That was the problem in the Pacific, you needed a Point of Reference, Like an Island, to Navigate Anywhere.


FLYING MY AIRCRAFT:
"C O U N T R Y GAL"
http://www.owensvalleyhistory.com/pinups1/elvgren8_thmb.jpg

Tully__
07-24-2004, 01:59 PM
To fly this mission I used the coordinates used by the game. The waypoint/object data in the mission files includes coordinates (in metres) for distance east and north of the soutwest corner of the map. The map grid is in km or km x 10, depending on zoom level. In addition to the alphanumeric reference at the top & right of the map, there is another set of reference in the bottom & left edges of the map. Every tenth grid line has a number which is distance from the bottom or left edge of the map in km. The grid corresponds exactly to the coordinates in the mission files once you take into account the metre/kilometre conversion.

Using basic geometry I calculated trip distance and using basic trigonometry (arctan) I got heading. For TAS calculation I used the table supplied in the "MANUAL" folder on FB game disc 2.

I chose 5000m because it gave me very close to 400km/h TAS (a round number http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) at 300km/h IAS. That wasn't necessary, any speed would do.

Simply dividing planned TAS by distance gives time @ heading to reach intended destination. All that remains is setting up heading/speed/altitude at the right place to start the timer.

As I mentioned above, FB maps are flat and "great circle" nav can be ignored in favour of basic cartesian geometry. The only tricky bit is taking the difference between TAS & IAS into account at altitude. If you were prepared to fly the whole mission at sea level even that could be mostly ignored http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

------

For carrier missions, total mission time and planned carrier heading would have to be factored in when choosing your heading for the home leg. It would be similar to planning for a round trip mission with landing at a field different to but near your takeoff point. I've flown a couple of those some years ago in CFS2 and for those I simply flew to a point that I knew the carrier had already passed then turned onto the same heading the carrier was supposed to be on. With about 150knots more than the carrier can manage, it doesn't take long to catch up and you're more or less on a landing approach heading when you find it (provided your LSO allows straight in approaches http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

Tully's X-45 profile (SST drivers) (http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/fb.zip)

Salut
Tully

IV_JG51_Razor
07-24-2004, 11:05 PM
Tully, how did you figure your ground speed during the climb? As I understand it, the game has no wind modeled, so TAS would be the same as ground speed during cruise flight, but for a climb to 5Km, there would probably be a lot of room for error if the difference between climb speed and actual ground speed weren't taken into account.

Razor
IV/JG51 11/12 Staffelkapitan
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

Tooz_69GIAP
07-24-2004, 11:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:As I understand it, the game has no wind modeled, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try loading up a mission with a fully laden He-111 in a thunderstorm. Then you'll experience some wind!!!! Last time I tried it, I couldn't even line up to taxi, never mind take off!!

whit ye looking at, ya big jessie?!?!

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_tooz.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)
Executive Officer, 69th GIAP
Za Rodinu!
Petition to stop the M3 motorway through the Tara-Skryne Valley in Co. Meath, Ireland (http://www.petitiononline.com/hilltara/petition.html)

Sakai9745
07-24-2004, 11:30 PM
In the absence of any wind, isn't GS the same as TAS, no matter whether one is climbing, descending, or level flight?

Al - SF, Calif

"Defense Dept regrets to inform you that your sons are dead cause they were stupid."

Tully__
07-25-2004, 03:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:
Tully, how did you figure your ground speed during the climb? As I understand it, the game has no wind modeled, so TAS would be the same as ground speed during cruise flight, but for a climb to 5Km, there would probably be a lot of room for error if the difference between climb speed and actual ground speed weren't taken into account.

Razor
IV/JG51 11/12 Staffelkapitan
http://www.jg51.net

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I ingored it. I climbed to altitude and got speed & heading stabilized before crossing my intitial reference point. To be more specific, my heading to desination was 106 degrees so I turned west and climbed in a circle west of my takeoff point until I reached altitude then flew across my takeoff point at correct speed, alt & heading, starting the timer as a pre-chosen reference point passed my right wing. I was prepared to do this as real world conditions include a climb to a preset formation rendezvous where the combat unit flies a holding pattern until the whole unit is formed up (at least that's my understaning of how it's done). I just chose to set my "rendezvous" directly over my take off field http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

Tully's X-45 profile (SST drivers) (http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/fb.zip)

Salut
Tully

Tully__
07-25-2004, 03:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sakai9745:
In the absence of any wind, isn't GS the same as TAS, no matter whether one is climbing, descending, or level flight?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite, though the difference isn't that great. GS = TAS x cos(climb angle). When level, cos(climb angle) = 1, but as climb (or descent) angle increase, cos(climb angle) reduces. This will cause you to take a bit longer than planned to reach waypoints if not taken into account.

To make it a little more obvious, imagine a full power vertical dive. TAS will be around mach 0.7 - 0.8 (for prop aircraft), but ground speed is zero http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

Tully's X-45 profile (SST drivers) (http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/fb.zip)

Salut
Tully

Fliger747
07-25-2004, 02:49 PM
Two isues, being able to spot the carriers (cloud bases) and optimum climb and cruise profile. Depending on the super/turbo charging, best range might occur at say 18,000 ft or so, depending on the load and the length of the leg (and the wind). such factors determine whether or not it would be worth the fuel to climb on a shorter leg.

In the pre computer era one had lots of charts, some of which took a bunch of these factors into account as you ran your pencil through the various lines on the graphs. An experienced aviator probably had some good rules of thumb handy (everyone with a different one).

By the way....... rarely any stars or planets visible at high altitude (up to 45,000ft) during the day. Possibly a bright planet, dimly visible (Venus), sometimes.

VF-3Thunderboy
07-25-2004, 06:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In the pre computer era one had lots of charts, some of which took a bunch of these factors into account as you ran your pencil through the various lines on the graphs. An experienced aviator probably had some good rules of thumb handy (everyone with a different one). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Flieger, Im sure you know this but they did have lots of "Jeppesen style" "computers"! But I have read some pilots who did the calculations in their heads, IE: (Rule of thumb).Time Knots, etc. I have some old NAvy Nav books comming soon,(2 and 3 anyway) And it has pics of Hellcats in em, so its hopefully applicable.Probably lots of trig, etc... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

BSS_Vidar
07-25-2004, 07:26 PM
Yes,
GS and TAS are roughly the same with no wind.... But, are we getting TAS on the speed bar or Indicated? If it's indicated, to get TAS we have to compensate for a Non-standard day.(The South Pacific rarely has one i.e.59F/15C and 29.92"Hg). Plus finding TAS is more of a pain IF the speed bar info is going to be all in metric.Airspeed indicators have a card built in to dial in temperature at a given altitude to compensate and give TAS, but we're not getting that in the sim. Dead reconing over large water areas will have to be done by wetting your finger and stickin' it out the canopy. At least the relitive wind will be consistant. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

BSS_Vidar

[This message was edited by BSS_Vidar on Sun July 25 2004 at 07:12 PM.]

IV_JG51_Razor
07-25-2004, 08:52 PM
Tooz, that wind only affects you while your landing gear are in contact with the ground. After you're airborne, the wind goes away! It doesn't affect your navigation, or the fall of your bombs on target either. Check it out.

Razor
IV/JG51 11/12 Staffelkapitan
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

Droopsnoot
07-25-2004, 09:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VF-3Thunderboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In the pre computer era one had lots of charts, some of which took a bunch of these factors into account as you ran your pencil through the various lines on the graphs. An experienced aviator probably had some good rules of thumb handy (everyone with a different one). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Flieger, Im sure you know this but they did have lots of "Jeppesen style" "computers"! But I have read some pilots who did the calculations in their heads, IE: (Rule of thumb).Time Knots, etc. I have some old NAvy Nav books comming soon,(2 and 3 anyway) And it has pics of Hellcats in em, so its hopefully applicable.Probably lots of trig, etc... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's one rule of thumb for you,

One degree off in course equals one mile off in 60. To parallel your desired track you correct 1 degree toward the desired track for each mile you are off course after flying 60 miles.

To return to desired track in sixty miles you correct two degrees toward track for every mile you are abeam of track.. (This is predicated on the wind remaining constant.)Also, your ability to hold a compass heasding http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

When you have returned to track you take off half of your initial correction , to parallel track again.

The technique of flying back to intersect the track of the carrier, then turning on the track line o f the carrier, mebntioned in a post above, is a type of landfall technique.

The only fallacy in that procedure is that you must be sure that the carrier has PASSED the point where you intersected it's track, else you will get very wet. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[This message was edited by Droopsnoot on Sun July 25 2004 at 08:23 PM.]

Droopsnoot
07-25-2004, 09:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:
Tooz, that wind only affects you while your landing gear are in contact with the ground. After you're airborne, the wind goes away! It doesn't affect your navigation, or the fall of your bombs on target either. Check it out.

Razor
IV/JG51 11/12 Staffelkapitan
http://www.jg51.net

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You gotta be kidding if you are talking about real life. If the wind doesn't affect you in the sim it can only be because there IS no wind effect programmed into the sim.

This would make it an arcade game not a flight simulator for it doesn't simulate the flight conditions of real life., but a false condition instead.

I have several thousand hours of aerial navigation time in which I "checked it out" in real life... also as a Bombardier, I can assure you the wind does indeed affect the fall of a bomb.

Have I misunderstood your post? It is a known fact that a moving air mass affects everything within it.

[This message was edited by Droopsnoot on Sun July 25 2004 at 08:56 PM.]

Fliger747
07-26-2004, 05:05 AM
Indeed "Jeppsen" style analog computers existed then, I have one from the Army Air Corps of WWII and a USN plotting board of that era (my dad's) which sports a "whizz wheel" down in the corner.

The difference with our modern "electronic" computers is it feeds everything in all at once, including the charcteristics of the particular plane you are flying plus downlinked winds and temperature info, and real time info (from air data computer and IRU/GPS) from where you are. Works pretty well. It is usefull to pour through the charts for odd situations like seeing if you can still fly another 3000 miles when you puke an engine over Northern Burma (Mynamar).

Droopsnoot
07-26-2004, 10:20 AM
You are so right, Fliger.

I use an E6B "computer" and a weems plotter regularly to do my navigation "longhand" regardless of what flight simulation I'm using.

That's why I deplore the "toy" navigation helps I find in most flight sims. But what is a developer to do?...a "player" has neither the training nor the desire to simulate anything really but his stick and rudder booting, for as I hear so many many times...

"It's only a game!."

Bedsides, with the satallite GPS available now,navigation as done in WWII, like visual bombing, with unguided "Iron Bombs", is a lost art.

So PF should make it simple to find the island or the carrier, and should use easily understood grid systems, not aeronautical charts.

And no player needs to go to his friendly flight shop at the airport and buy Jeppson circular slipsticks, blank flight logs and parallel rulers or plotters.

Only old crocks like me buy flight simulations that demand knowing all those archaic skills, for we feel like modern flying "games" lack immersion and realism and are like taking a shower with our clothes on.

It is only today, after reading these posts about navigation on this forum that I finally realized why it is that, though I own all of this series of "flight sims" from IL2 on, I never fly them, and probably will let Pacific Fighters gather dust on my shelf as well.

So unless you are a purist like this ancient mariner, don't fault PF for simplified navigation... that is not what you are buying it for... It is not intended to be a NAVITRAINER, but instead, a WARGAME...a fancy airbourne first person shooter.

So don't sweat how you'll find the carrier... you will have to work hard to LOSE it!.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sakai9745
07-26-2004, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>imagine a full power vertical dive. TAS will be around mach 0.7 - 0.8 (for prop aircraft), but ground speed is zero http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Tully<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah! Okay, I get your point. That's isn't the sort of maneuver I'm used to in a Piper Archer. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Cheers,

Al - SF, Calif

"Defense Dept regrets to inform you that your sons are dead cause they were stupid."

VF-3Thunderboy
07-26-2004, 05:34 PM
I just got 2 Circa 1943 Bureau of Aeronautics,US navy air navigation manuals, Intro to Navigation, and Dead Reckoning and lines of position, out of a total of 7 books in the series.About 80 pages each.
You would have to be "a bit" technically orientated for this stuff, but its good stuff! You would need a plotting board, and the tools also. This stuff could be put in the sim, maybe as an add-on, but I reckon it may not get much use.But I think it would round out the sim, for sure.The Dead reckoning exercises look really cool, once you know what your doing!
Now I want at least 2 more of these books... Ugh...

|CoB|_Spectre
07-26-2004, 06:32 PM
Back when I was flying general aviation, I always invested the time in preflight planning because that's the way I was trained. I would decide my route, establish my waypoints and factor-in airspeed during climb, cruise and descent. Right before the flight, I would check with Flight Service to get the winds aloft information, then work it out on the E6B for crab angle (crosswind correction) and speed/time. One flight I remember in particular took me over increasingly thickening clouds, going from few to scattered to broken, to almost solid. There were no electronic nav aids where I was headed and I had no GPS, so dead reckoning was the order of the day. I had decided that if I didn't get a break in the cloud cover by a certain time, I would turn around and head home with ample fuel and reserve. I was very pleased when, through a small break in the clouds, I saw a road with a Y-shaped fork in it. According to the chart, there was only one such road with a Y-shaped fork in that entire area and my navigation had put me right where I was supposed to be. I continued the flight and found a hole in the clouds through which I could make a spiraling descent, found the airfield and landed safely. Getting home was another story, but fortunately after flying amongst the towering cumulous, the cloud cover abated as I neared home. My daughter and I will always remember that flight, I just wish my wife and camcorder had been with us. Clock and compass works IF you plan properly. Precision comes with detail and you need to include reduced speeds encountered during climb. Foremost, keep in mind that fuel is time, not distance.

Droopsnoot
07-26-2004, 06:50 PM
There is a flight simulation readily available to you that will allow you to really navigate, since their scenery covers the world and matches the aeronautical type of charts., from a standpoint of location via Latitude and longitude.

You can use either Mercator projections or Lambert Conformal charts which is what your regional and sectional charts are.

This Flight Simulator has all the navigational aide in the scenery as well

Also you can fly in Real life weather for it downloads it and loads it into the simulation.

You have all winds aloft and temperature gradients as well as changes in barometric pressures automatically upgraded every 15 minutes as you fly.

You will find that there is real intellectual satisfaction in navigating from "here to there" and hitting your destination on the nose, exactly when you calculated you would.

Droopsnoot
07-26-2004, 06:55 PM
Spectre, you are a VERY lucky man. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

IV_JG51_Razor
07-26-2004, 10:31 PM
"You gotta be kidding if you are talking about real life. If the wind doesn't affect you in the sim it can only be because there IS no wind effect programmed into the sim."

No, I'm not talking about real life Droopsnoot. I'm talking about the game, IL-2FB/AEP. There is no wind in the game, other than what you experience on takeoff during "stormy conditions". As soon as you leave the ground, the wind goes away. There is no need for wind correction while trying to fly a course over the ground, nor is there any loss of ground speed due to flying into the wind. If you've ever taken the time to experiment with it, you also would have seen that there is definitely no wind effect on bombs droped from a Heinkel using the bomb sight.

For this reason, I would speculate that we won't see any wind in PF either, other than what we see on takeoff from a carrier deck.

Razor
IV/JG51 11/12 Staffelkapitan
www.jg51.net (http://www.jg51.net)

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"

Droopsnoot
07-26-2004, 11:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:
_"You gotta be kidding if you are talking about real life. If the wind doesn't affect you in the sim it can only be because there IS no wind effect programmed into the sim."_

No, I'm not talking about real life Droopsnoot. I'm talking about the game, IL-2FB/AEP. There is no wind in the game, other than what you experience on takeoff during "stormy conditions". As soon as you leave the ground, the wind goes away. There is no need for wind correction while trying to fly a course over the ground, nor is there any loss of ground speed due to flying into the wind. If you've ever taken the time to experiment with it, you also would have seen that there is definitely no wind effect on bombs droped from a Heinkel using the bomb sight.

For this reason, I would speculate that we won't see any wind in PF either, other than what we see on takeoff from a carrier deck.

Razor
IV/JG51 11/12 Staffelkapitan
http://www.jg51.net

"Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from poor judgement"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what I thought you meant but on this forum I didn't feel at liberty to say so.

I took those programs off my computer soon after I first bought them for that reason.

For as any navigator knows, "wind is the constant variable". T

That's why I know nothing about IL2 and FB as modified by AEP.

If you will visit the Bombs Away Forum, you will find that I, (as A.C) am the moderator for the forum that discusses what I regard as the most complete desk top flight simulator available.

I own three separate copies of it all of which are loaded on my computers.

I am presently writing a simulated Celestial Navigation add-on for it. I have an earlier Psuedo Celestial technique that I wrote and used on an earlier version of the flight sim. over five years ago.

I navigated all over every major ocean depicted in that simulation using it.(I use blank mercators for charts, just as I did in WWII.so lack of "maps" is not a problem.

The Lat/Long coordinates of places match the scenery.

wickedpenguin
07-27-2004, 09:00 AM
In MS2004, it's great to navigate by deduced reckoning, VFR, or using older nav tools such as NDB. I'm starting flight training (in real life) so I have a sectional for South Florida and an E6-b. The sim is about 95% accurate from what I've seen, as far as frequencies go.

I recently did a cross country flight from a strange airport near Lake Okeechobee down to my real-life "home" airport in south Miami. It was *extremely* satisfying making it in one piece without so much as turning on the Garmin GPS. Using a stopwatch and the chart I was able to figure out my TAS (113kts) and I used strictly visual aids - airports, landmarks, coastlines, canals.

Now, mind you, Florida is pretty easy to fly around, since no matter where you go you'll eventually hit water and just follow the coast. I'd like to experiment with a state where it's much more difficult to navigate visually.

Overall, though, practicing in the sim really helps for procedures once you get into the actual cockpit. It goes a long way to building up good habits and strenghtening the mind for quick but important calculations.

"Fear is the mindkiller"
- Dune
----------------------------------
[b]Wicked Penguin Corporation[/b[
Web - Flash - Multimedia - DVD Authoring

Droopsnoot
07-27-2004, 09:50 AM
Thanks for mentioning my favorite sim. I have navigated around the world with it, as I stated in my earlier post.

It is indeed as close to real flying as you can get, for it is not "only as game" as experienced flyers all know.

I rarely use GPS and usually fly off airways using only the old techniques, for as you've discovered , it is greatly satisfying.

You can now fly vintage WWI and II combat planes that perform exactly as the tech orders specify. (Or at least you will be able to in a matter of a few days.) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I presently have two planes I flew in Real Life in the AF and they are AUTHENTIC in their performanmce. I would judge that those I haven't ever flown will be just as authentic in their performsance, so I'm looking forward to when the Add-on for them becomes available.

One of the ones I have that I used to fly, was the B29.

I have had to get used to the idea that I am a lot busier than I was when I flew it for real... No co-jock, Engineer, navigator or Scanners to help! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

wickedpenguin
07-27-2004, 01:33 PM
A lot of people get into MSFS for the "heavy metal" - the 747's and 777's and Airbuses. That's not my thing - I really prefer the GA planes, the Cessnas and the Pipers that make flying fun and enjoyable, rather than automated and computerized. Following roads, flying between mountains rather than over them, dropping a floatplane onto untouched mountain lake... that's what I like.

The Add-on community for FS is top-notch. Most payware is worth the money, and a good percentage of the free addon are terrific. There are some addons where you can literally see the loving attention to detail in little things like the authentic gauges, real sounds, and realistic flight models.

If you're looking for really great GA addons, Carenado's http://www.carenado.com are top-notch. I have their Cessna 210, Piper Dakota, and Beechcraft Mentor. All are really well done and a joy to fly.

"Fear is the mindkiller"
- Dune
----------------------------------
[b]Wicked Penguin Corporation[/b[
Web - Flash - Multimedia - DVD Authoring

Droopsnoot
07-27-2004, 02:43 PM
They look Great!

Best I've seen!

|CoB|_Spectre
07-27-2004, 04:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wickedpenguin:
Now, mind you, Florida is pretty easy to fly around, since no matter where you go you'll eventually hit water and just follow the coast. I'd like to experiment with a state where it's much more difficult to navigate visually.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well...not quite. I live in the Jacksonville area and anywhere from here westward to Pensacola, if you fly north, the first sizeable water you hit will be the Great Lakes. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Tully__
10-27-2004, 01:37 AM
Bump