PDA

View Full Version : A6M2 Zero folding wing tips



XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 05:33 AM
Hello... just curious to know if the A6M2 Zero will be able to fold his wing tips..just like it should be.

Maybe it won't even if it should.. just like the canopy should and aren't. Well.. just curious if it has been made.

S~

http://wuaf.com/images/Falco/WUAF-Header.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 05:33 AM
Hello... just curious to know if the A6M2 Zero will be able to fold his wing tips..just like it should be.

Maybe it won't even if it should.. just like the canopy should and aren't. Well.. just curious if it has been made.

S~

http://wuaf.com/images/Falco/WUAF-Header.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 07:07 AM
wouldnt it be cool to take the engine out as well.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 08:15 AM
Taking the engine out ?? why ?



http://wuaf.com/images/Falco/WUAF-Header.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 10:28 AM
WUAF_Gen_Falco wrote:
- Taking the engine out ?? why ?
-
-

for the same reason we should fold wings tips and open canopy...


<center><img src=http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg></center>

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 05:21 PM
Did all A6M2s have folding wing tips, or only the ones equipped for carrier operations? I ask because it has been noted that the A6M5 we have now is a land-based version lacking carrier gear.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 06:01 PM
the japanese began fitting them with folding tips at the 65th plane... No other version existed, so they had about 60 A6M2 without folding tips, and the remaining with them...

the models without folding tips are model 11
the models with folding tips are model 21

<center><img src=http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg></center>

Message Edited on 12/15/0305:03PM by Hoarmurath

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 06:43 PM
Hoarmurath wrote:

WUAF_Gen_Falco wrote:
Taking the engine out ?? why ?


for the same reason we should fold wings tips and
open canopy...



Well it's up to you if you don't want to have realistic options. Folding wing tips is a part of what that plane could do.

MOst of Zeros had the folding wing tips. It's part of their caractheristics.. why not respecting it.

Then.. explain me why CFS2 (a 2 year old simulator) can allow us to do more things.. like folding wing tips, opening canoppy, switching fuel tanks, clicking on the button directly with the mouse on the cockpit it self.. and why is an actual sim not able to make these simple features working ?


Look. i posted this post to know if it will be made. If it's not.. i won't be crying to anyone.. it's just that i'd like to have this option availlable.. just like it should be in really, then why call it a simulator ?


S~

http://wuaf.com/images/Falco/WUAF-Header.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 07:03 PM
you call CFS a simulator... i don't... Fancy options like opening of canopies or folding of wings don't make up for crappy FM and DM...

If your ambition is to make FB another CFS, i'm sorry, but i have to disagree, i enjoy playing FB but never enjoyed CFS.

You can also go to the CFS forums and ask if they can add all the good points from FB... I don't think it is possible, but you can try...

<center><img src=http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg></center>

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 07:10 PM
why do u need to fold the wingtips? anyways, i think some and some couldnt


whineingu /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 07:25 PM
WUAF_Gen_Falco wrote:

- for the same reason we should fold wings tips and
- open canopy...
-
-
-
- Well it's up to you if you don't want to have
- realistic options. Folding wing tips is a part of
- what that plane could do.
-
- MOst of Zeros had the folding wing tips. It's part
- of their caractheristics.. why not respecting it.
-
- Then.. explain me why CFS2 (a 2 year old simulator)
- can allow us to do more things.. like folding wing
- tips, opening canoppy, switching fuel tanks,
- clicking on the button directly with the mouse on
- the cockpit it self.. and why is an actual sim not
- able to make these simple features working ?

That is fair point... but remember that the CFS 2 developers only modelled 7 player aircraft (two of which were Zeros) so they were able to devote a great deal of effort to the modelling of those planes. On the other hand, they did some things in far less detail; the damage models were based on "boxes" larger than the 3D models that allowed you to score hits without connecting with the 3D-model and (by far the worst feature of CFS 2 IMHO) made plane-plane collisions occur in situations where you have a very close pass in FB.

- Look. i posted this post to know if it will be made.
- If it's not.. i won't be crying to anyone.. it's
- just that i'd like to have this option availlable..
- just like it should be in really, then why call it a
- simulator ?

It a case of nesscessity... while attention to detail, such as folding wings, is nice, it has very little influence on game play (we don't even have carriers) in the current FB context. To deride FB for lack of that (and the fuel tank selection to use your example) is a little harsh, don't you think?


"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg


Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 09:29 PM
Hehe.. i been playing CFS2 for 1 year overall. And why you think i switched to IL-2.. sure.. i better like their DM & FM.

But what about making planes with their original aspects ?

I don't call CFS a simulator... cuz their DM & FM are very crappy, but at least they got these options. It's useless for the flights, but fun to watch.

They should add these features into FB, and it would be a greater sim.. that's all. I like the 3D Models much better than 2D. For sure.

My ambition is not to make FB another CFS.. but my ambition would be to have the most features of both sims together in FB. Maybe you think that we should stop progress ?

I think that sims must go further to reach perfect realisim somewhen. Maybe your ambitions are limited and you got enough with this game. Yes this game is great, but it would be greater if it had everything pĂ´ssible to do.


http://wuaf.com/images/Falco/WUAF-Header.jpg


Message Edited on 12/15/0303:33PM by WUAF_Gen_Falco

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 09:53 PM
Were the Zero's wing tips folded manually or by some a/c sytem? If manual, then would need little sailers running around.



http://www.f1boat.com/03/boats/300x100/27.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Hoarmurath
12-18-2003, 12:06 PM
they were folded manually

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

Gibbage1
12-18-2003, 03:32 PM
What would you rather have? Good DM/FM or folding wingtips? CFS3 shows you currently cant have both. Maybe a sim in the near future can. Would you rather have Oleg concentrate on things like FM/DM/AI and other important aspects of the sim, or useless stuff like folding wingtips?

Also, FYI, there was no "magic" red button on most (if any?) aircraft that would fold the wings. It took a ground crew to do that. To have them fold just by hitting a key would be VERY unrealistic. I doubt Oleg will program in ground crew that run too your aircraft and fold/unforld the wings.

Also folding wings would add a lot of polygons to the model. Also adds a structural weak point to the DM.

And again, there are no aircraft in the game that could fold its wings. The A6M2 type 21 was the last model of zero with folding wings. The rest clipped the wings, like the A6M5. So asking for folding wigns on the Zero is historically inaccurate.

Well I can go all day and pick this post appart. But I said my peace. Maybe Luthier will have folding wings on his next sim. You can go to www.il2center.com (http://www.il2center.com) and ask him.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Gen_Falco:
Hehe.. i been playing CFS2 for 1 year overall. And why you think i switched to IL-2.. sure.. i better like their DM & FM.

But what about making planes with their original aspects ?

I don't call CFS a simulator... cuz their DM & FM are very crappy, but at least they got these options. It's useless for the flights, but fun to watch.

They should add these features into FB, and it would be a greater sim.. that's all. I like the 3D Models much better than 2D. For sure.

My ambition is not to make FB another CFS.. but my ambition would be to have the most features of both sims together in FB. Maybe you think that we should stop progress ?

I think that sims must go further to reach perfect realisim somewhen. Maybe your ambitions are limited and you got enough with this game. Yes this game is great, but it would be greater if it had everything pĂ´ssible to do.


http://wuaf.com/images/Falco/WUAF-Header.jpg


Message Edited on 12/15/0303:33PM by WUAF_Gen_Falco<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

KIMURA
12-18-2003, 03:55 PM
- Good DM/FM or folding wingtips

Wait Gibbage. Do we really have good FM's?? The FM's gains bader and bader with every new patch. Do I really have to count up a/c in FB with doubtful FM?? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Gibbage1
12-18-2003, 04:57 PM
Can you be more spacific? So far I have heard a LOT less complaints about the FM in this new patch. Besides, have you even flown the compatition? Everything in the CFS3 fly's like its on rails with no mass. At least when flying IL2 you can feel the weight of the aircraft resisting manuvers, and know when your flying the knifes edge on a stall. You dont get that edge-of-your-seat experance with anything else on the market. Oleg and his team did a GREAT job simulating flight and airial combat. Its only HUMAN to not be perfect. And if your nitpicking little things like 5MPH differance in top speed at X altitude on Y aircraft, BFD!! I dare you to find a better sim that get EVERYTHING on EVERY aircraft PERFECT. It does not exist.

I have a therie. Everyone needs to complain about something. If they can only find something small like folding wings to complain about, then Oleg did a damn good job! Im constantly amazed by IL2 every day I play it. Like finding things like doppler effect, and damaged hydrolics forcing you to manually lower your gear. This game is not perfect, but its FAR from flawed.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
- Good DM/FM or folding wingtips

Wait Gibbage. Do we really have good FM's?? The FM's gains bader and bader with every new patch. Do I really have to count up a/c in FB with doubtful FM?? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SkyChimp
12-18-2003, 07:21 PM
A stationary aircraft with folded wings tips would look kind of neat. But otherwise, I don't see folding wings controllable by the pilot as very useful.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Gibbage1
12-18-2003, 08:09 PM
Well folded wings on a land base would make no sense. So we would need a carrier. But we dont have one yet. We dont even have an aircraft that can fold its wings. So..... Um. Ya. It would be cool "if".

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
A stationary aircraft with folded wings tips would look kind of neat. But otherwise, I don't see folding wings controllable by the pilot as very useful.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

KIMURA
12-19-2003, 05:15 AM
Gibbage to count up the strange things would fill the whole site.

One thing, the I-16 turinig radus is now more narrow than with RC, close as narrow as the radius of the Zero. The Zero only has an advatange that with the use of flaps. Rollrate is too poor. The actually rollrate of the Zero is that of a A6M2, not the rollrate of the A6M5a.

Acceraltion of La-5F just after the retract of the flaps - that's a joke.

P-39, if U think the P-39 was that way in WWII as it is with FB - o.k. I rather call that FM nonsense.

190 DM is just a joke now. Especally in relation to the 0.5". A

And many more things..............

WUAF_Gen_Falco
12-19-2003, 12:03 PM
Well.. understanding you guys, so you don't like the idea. Well i know it's not usefull, but at least, that be more realistic. That's all.

And what about the corsair, wouldn't you love to have the wings able to fold ? We'd need a carier but that will only be in BoB i think. For now.. it would be fun to have folding wings anyway.

S~

http://wuaf.com/images/Falco/WUAF-Header.jpg

Gibbage1
12-19-2003, 12:52 PM
Show me proof it was NOT this way. So far everyone bases there openions on FM and DM on speculation and no hard evidence. The burden of proof is on you if you want it changed. You cant just say "I think its this way" without showing some form of proof of your claim and expect if changed.

Have you flown a REAL I-16? Do you have numbers showing its turn radious? Or is this just speculation?

As for the P-39, not people base the "stalling brick" openion based off of US accounts on early P-39's. US only flew P-39 D's. Thats like saying the 109K4 is too fast based off of pilot accounts of 109E2!!! Bell made MANY MANY improvements from P-39 D too P-39 N and Q. We are talking years of development and Bell worked closely with the Soviet pilots to make it better. Have you read Soviet pilot accounts? They LOVED the bird!!! Said it was a match for ANY German in the sky and said the stalls were a lot more controleable then the early models due too design changes. As for the climb rate, people base that off of US figures. Chuck 100lb radio, 150lb armor, 200lb of guns, and carry a LOT less fuel (like the Soviets did) and you CAN get a lot better climb out of it then whats listed in the US docs.

As for the 190 DM. Its still a very powerful aircraft. I fill those things up with .50 call all the time and yes. The wings will fall off if hit in the proper spot. A .50 cal goign through the main wing star will ruin is structural integrity and cause a catastrophic failure. There is guncam footage from a P-47 showing a wing tearing right off a FW-190 after a few hits. Do you have any proof this DID NOT happen to counter the proof that it did?

Im rather tired of people crying "I think the game should be this way" and not backing it up with any proof what-so-ever other then speculation. Then they blame Oleg for not listening too there wild un-documented claims and call him bies. If you want something "corrected", bring proof of your claims and you will have a lot better response then "I think it should be like this" crud.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
Gibbage to count up the strange things would fill the whole site.

One thing, the I-16 turinig radus is now more narrow than with RC, close as narrow as the radius of the Zero. The Zero only has an advatange that with the use of flaps. Rollrate is too poor. The actually rollrate of the Zero is that of a A6M2, not the rollrate of the A6M5a.

Acceraltion of La-5F just after the retract of the flaps - that's a joke.

P-39, if U think the P-39 was that way in WWII as it is with FB - o.k. I rather call that FM nonsense.

190 DM is just a joke now. Especally in relation to the 0.5". A

And many more things..............<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MiloMorai
12-19-2003, 01:00 PM
Gibbage, I think you will find the wing came off because the wing ammo exploded. A .50" going through a wing spar would not cause a wing to fail.

"There is guncam footage from a P-47 showing a wing tearing right off a FW-190 after a few hits. Do you have any proof this DID NOT happen to counter the proof that it did?"

Gibbage1
12-19-2003, 10:55 PM
Our hole point is that its NOT realistic. The A6M5 zero had no folding wings. We dont have an F4U. A ground crew would be needed in order to fold any wings. We have no aircraft that even have folding wings. So you think it would be cool to have folding wings on say a Yak 3 or a Fw-190? Is that realistic?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Gen_Falco:
Well.. understanding you guys, so you don't like the idea. Well i know it's not usefull, but at least, that be more realistic. That's all.

And what about the corsair, wouldn't you love to have the wings able to fold ? We'd need a carier but that will only be in BoB i think. For now.. it would be fun to have folding wings anyway.

S~

http://wuaf.com/images/Falco/WUAF-Header.jpg<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WUAF_Gen_Falco
12-21-2003, 08:56 AM
Well... look over here M8:
http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/a6m/

The A6M2 Model 21 quickly replaced the Model 11 on the production lines. The new model featured manually folding wingtips to fit the standard 11-meter-wide deck elevators of Japanâ's aircraft carriers. This model also entered production with Nakajima-ironically, Nakajima, after withdrawing from the original design competition, would become the main company producing Zeros, as it was Japanâ's largest aircraft maker.

So, what do you think now? I think this bird diserve folding wing tips, that's all. I'm not stupid enough to ask folding wing tips on a plane that never had the folding wings tips. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

S~

VW-IceFire
12-21-2003, 04:26 PM
Biggest point against folding wingtips is that we have no aircraft carriers. If FB had aircraft carriers and a Japanese carrier was modeled, carrier ops were modeled, you can be darn sure that Oleg would have modeled in folded wingtips (likely for stationary aircraft). Since folding wingtips was done on aircraft carriers pretty much exclusively there is no point in having it here. There isn't a precedent for it.

The Corsair that were hopefully getting sometime in the future will largely be considered part of the USMC rather than USN in my mind because yet again we have no carrier for it to take off from. To my knowledge, no USMC Corsair ever had its wings folded for conventional operations (please correct me if I'm wrong).

And just to weigh in, Gibbage is absolutely correct in that we have the best FM's on the market. Regardless of what so and so says about X plane flying 10kph too slow at Y altitude under Z conditions we still have a REALLY excellent FM, AI, and all the like under the hood.

These problems with various planes come from the human factor in that no one is ever perfect. Oleg continues to remain dedicated to tweaking and fixing things and with 1.21 we've gotten extremely close to having virtually all aircraft performing close to standards. We've still got some bugs (FW190's need complex damage modeling to put it on par with everything else) but hey its close to perfect and thats all you should expect.

Sometimes I find the comments are just for the sake of making the comment rather than actually having something done about it.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg

WUAF_Gen_Falco
12-21-2003, 10:09 PM
Well i agree with you 100% IceFire. My point of view.. is that if we got the A6M2 21, why not having the features that this plane got. Maybe they should made the 11 model then.

I know that we have no carriers to land on and it's quite useless without them. 100% agree, but my point is that we simply should have this feature.

I also really appreciate the fact that our FM are very close to reality (for most of all planes, exept the P40 at high alt). IL2 is the closest sim to reality.

But for me, the next sim, that will contain ALL features of aircrafts, will be the #1 sim. I really wish that IL2 always stays #1, but even if microsoft did a bad sim with CFS3, they are getting close to reality, exept for their crappy FM & DM.

The realisim of Flight procedures is very close though. But i still prefer IL2 WAY MUCH better for it FM & DM. I'm just wishing it to be better, and that could begin by including ALL features possible on aricrafts, including folding wing tips, even if we got no carriers, the A6M2 21 had them, why not making them.

S~

Gibbage1
12-22-2003, 01:46 AM
Im guessing that if we did get carriers, Oleg may put in folding wings. Who knows? But to ask for folding wings now is rather dumb since no aircraft currently in IL2 FB or even in the next add-on will have them. We DONT have an A6M2 type 21. So why ask for this feature if we have no aircraft that uses it?

Its funny that you consider "reality" to be folding wingtips and NOT fm or dm. Rather quite amusing. It defy's logic and I am at a loss on this one. Its EXTREAMLY funny how your asking for something as trivial as folding wing tips and not sliding canopy's so you can stick your head out when on the runway for better view over the nose of your aircraft. THATS getting closer too reality, not folding wing tips. Why not whine about that?

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Gen_Falco:
Well i agree with you 100% IceFire. My point of view.. is that if we got the A6M2 21, why not having the features that this plane got. Maybe they should made the 11 model then.

I know that we have no carriers to land on and it's quite useless without them. 100% agree, but my point is that we simply should have this feature.

I also really appreciate the fact that our FM are very close to reality (for most of all planes, exept the P40 at high alt). IL2 is the closest sim to reality.

But for me, the next sim, that will contain ALL features of aircrafts, will be the #1 sim. I really wish that IL2 always stays #1, but even if microsoft did a bad sim with CFS3, they are getting close to reality, exept for their crappy FM & DM.

The realisim of Flight procedures is very close though. But i still prefer IL2 WAY MUCH better for it FM & DM. I'm just wishing it to be better, and that could begin by including ALL features possible on aricrafts, including folding wing tips, even if we got no carriers, the A6M2 21 had them, why not making them.

S~<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Platypus_1.JaVA
12-22-2003, 02:36 AM
LOL, it would be cool to do that during flight http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Folding your wingtips will surely have some weird aerodynamic consequence so, you'll shake the enemy from your tail http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WUAF_Gen_Falco
12-22-2003, 09:06 AM
I already talked about opening canoppy, and it seems like poeple doesn't like the idea either. I'm not talking about sacrifying the FM & DM if they do moving parts such as wings & Canoppy.

Why do you always think that i'd like them to sacrifice the FM for that ? I said that i like the FM & Dm in IL2 and find that they are very close to reality. Dunno why you keep saying that about me there.

Ask people for the canopy.. they're afraid of improvement i think.

S~

Gato-Loco
12-22-2003, 05:34 PM
I still don't get the point of having folding wings. The idea of landing a plane, pressing a key in my keyboard and having the wings automatically come up is a bit silly, given the fact that wings were folded up by land personnel (who are not modeled). I don't think this is "fear of improvement", just common sense. About opening canopies, I'm more open to that idea! I know that some pilots in some planes did opened their canopies during flight. I wouldn't mind seeing this feature added. But of course, I rather see the effort spent in more useful things: more planes and maps, improving the DGEN, etc.etc.etc.

p1ngu666
12-22-2003, 05:48 PM
yeah, pilots opened canopys a fair amount i belive.
bet in russian winter they was closed as much as possible tho http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MiloMorai
12-22-2003, 05:51 PM
An open canopy was also a safety factor when landing if the a/c turned over allowing the pilot to escape if he was capable of doing so. Side hinged canopies like on the 109 meant you were trapped until you were rescued.

WhtBoy
12-22-2003, 06:50 PM
Falco,
Unless I am reading incorrectly, I believe that the "sacrifice" only refers to taking time and effort away from more important things (ie FM and/or DM) that would have a much bigger impact on the game, not actually degrading them from their current state.

-WhtBoy.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Gen_Falco:
I already talked about opening canoppy, and it seems like poeple doesn't like the idea either. I'm not talking about sacrifying the FM & DM if they do moving parts such as wings & Canoppy.

Why do you always think that i'd like them to sacrifice the FM for that ? I said that i like the FM & Dm in IL2 and find that they are very close to reality. Dunno why you keep saying that about me there.

Ask people for the canopy.. they're afraid of improvement i think.

S~<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage1
12-22-2003, 07:26 PM
Do you program? Do you know how too program? Have you ever delt with a program over 3 million lines of code? How in the world can you say it wont take long? Doing something like folding wingtips takes a lot to program in unless you do it half-assed like in CFS3 to were it folds in mid air with no consequance on flight dynamics.

Something like opening canopy's would take less to program, but more to model. None of the cockpits in IL2 have the canopy modeled in a way were it can slide or move. This is a feature we must do without since Oleg will NOT spend a lot of hours going over the old models and modeling in a cockpit. ITs something that must be planned in from the start.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Why do you always think that i'd like them to sacrifice the FM for that ? I said that i like the FM & Dm in IL2 and find that they are very close to reality. Dunno why you keep saying that about me there.

S~<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gato-Loco
12-22-2003, 07:51 PM
Good point!

WUAF_Badsight
12-23-2003, 03:57 AM
ok i just read the original post :

"Hello... just curious to know if the A6M2 Zero will be able to fold his wing tips..just like it should be.

Maybe it won't even if it should.. just like the canopy should and aren't. Well.. just curious if it has been made. "


cant see any " Whine " there at all

just a polite request in the forum where you request stuff to Oleg maddox
olegs ready room

the horse is high & its time for you to get off it Gibbage

every single post by WUAF_Falco has been with respect ( unlike some of mine )

not something many other people who post here at UBI can also say

Gibbage1 wrote :
THATS getting closer too reality, not folding wing tips. Why not whine about that?

V-T
12-23-2003, 04:33 AM
Hmm, i noticed a "bug"(?) When i released canopy for ejection, i saw the canopy flow away, but then i looked up, and the canopy still seemed to be there, just over my head.
So, why not to draw cockpits so that when one releases canopy, it REALLY goes away?

Sorry for my bad english.

Gibbage1
12-23-2003, 12:39 PM
I like it up here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
the horse is high & its time for you to get off it Gibbage
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WUAF_Co_Hero
12-24-2003, 04:07 AM
I think the folding wing tips would be a nice touch, not on flyable a/c, like dogfight Zero's (as you would have to physically fold and unfold them manuallyb), but perhaps an option to have the zero's on the deck (parked) have the wingtips toggled folded or not?

It would make the plane more compact, and possibly let creative map makers put them in more concealed areas... and simply look cool.

Platypus_1.JaVA
12-24-2003, 04:20 AM
Ow come-on dudes... Don't get all hussed-up because of two 50cm wingtips that could be folded on the ground. It is not in the game because there is no need to. I always tought it was a bit rediculous and unusefull, having only 50cm of each wing folding up. I can't imagine it made alot of diffrence. If they did an entire wing section, it would help...

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php

Gibbage1
12-24-2003, 09:18 PM
It made such little differance that they nixed the folding wingtip all-togeather and just clipped the wingtips in later models. Only the Zero type 21 had them. The only reason they did the folding wingtips was so the zero would fit on carrier elivators. Not for space! The US went too folding wings like the F4F-4 to fit more aircraft on carriers. The original F4F's did not even have folding wings.

As for having "static" aircraft on the ground have the option for folding wingtips, you dont have any space concerns on the ground. In fact, the last thing you wanna do is cram a bunch of aircraft togeather and lign them up! Stupid stuff like that is great for vulching. Just ask the Japs at Pearl Harbor how well it helped them. Thats a strategicly stupid idea. I have seen MANY pics of F4F's and F4U's on the ground and they NEVER EVER folded there wings.

Let me say this 1 more time. Folding wings has NO PLACE IN IL2 WHAT SO EVER unless we get carriers.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
Ow come-on dudes... Don't get all hussed-up because of two 50cm wingtips that could be folded on the ground. It is not in the game because there is no need to. I always tought it was a bit rediculous and unusefull, having only 50cm of each wing folding up. I can't imagine it made alot of diffrence. If they did an entire wing section, it would help...

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CARBONFREEZE
12-27-2003, 01:03 AM
I think Falco is just trying to make the point that having some/more features; such as folding wing tips, movable canopy, true engine startup procedure, ect would simply improve IL-2 even more. There might not be any "practical" reason to have these things except for realism/immursion's sake but it would still help to improve IL-2 as a whole and make it one of the best public WW2 sims to date. Some things deserve a higher priority then adding new eye candy/immersion effects; such as fixing the Fw-190 DM, improving the accuracy of the high altitude flight models of all aircraft, and fixing bugs as a whole.

Improvement/developement of a simulation is a good thing, don't be afraid of it Gibbage. Instead of critisizing someone with a new/good/bad idea, try thinking of a way to improve the sim or put that persons idea to use in some way (maybe to spark your own imagination?).

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

LEXX_Luthor
12-27-2003, 10:45 AM
HAHA wing on a slider. Visualize the Microsoft Noob sitting all day slapping away at the Fold Wing button.

Now why can't I be Tolerant and Compassionate and politely say there is no in game use for folding wings in FB and the airplane modders would be *wasting* their time modding it.



__________________
New Zealand's Cleopatra weekly on USA SciFi Channel starting 03 January (5-6 AM http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)
http://www.xenite.org/exchange/standard/cleorenpictures.jpg (http://www.sf-fandom.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=19)

KIMURA
12-28-2003, 04:51 AM
Gibbage wrote:
Have you flown a REAL I-16? Do you have numbers showing its turn radious? Or is this just speculation
++++++++++++++++++
Gibbage, as for the I-16, there are enough Soviet or Spanish pilots reports which states the I-16 was a damn dangerous a/c to it's own pilot. Very instable to all 3 axes, dangerous to land and to start. Actully it's one of the easiest a/c in FB to fly.
---------------------------
Gibbage wrote:

As for the P-39, not people base the "stalling brick" openion based off of US accounts on early P-39's. US only flew P-39 D's. Thats like saying the 109K4 is too fast based off of pilot accounts of 109E2!!! Bell made MANY MANY improvements from P-39 D too P-39 N and Q.
++++++++++++++++++++++++

The P-39 had a tendency to flatspin, show me that in FB, Gib. It wasn't a rookie a/c. Even the Soviets eqiepped the Guard units with the P-39, in the knowledge how dangerous it is to give that a/c to the hands and average or poor trained pilots.

+++++++++++++++++

Gibbage wrote:
A .50 cal goign through the main wing star will ruin is structural integrity and cause a catastrophic failure. There is guncam footage from a P-47 showing a wing tearing right off a FW-190 after a few hits. Do you have any proof this DID NOT happen to counter the proof that it did.

++++++++++++
Partly incorrect Gib.
I guess I know that sequence you mentioned above. That 190 is flying very low at tree top - right? If you take a more excact look at that sequence you'll see the wing isn't teared off by the bullets. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The belly tank is exploding, this explossion teared of the wing. That's a little difference.

As back on topic on the A6M5a. The A6M5a had, below 290kph, the same roll-rate as the Seafire LIIc (Spitfire IX). Trials flown by Lt.Law, Oct.44 in Maryland. Mock combatants Seafire LIIc and a Zero Model 52.

Gibbage, I'm interested in WWII airwarfare not since yesterday.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif