Ivans Corsairs

[No Dice]

IVan,
I have attempted downloading your Corsairs from the archieve here, 404 file not found. Is it possible for you to re-upload them or maybe send me a copy.

Dave www.thefreeflightsite.com

[No Dice]

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

[Ivan]

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.

[No Dice]

Ivan,
Thanks for sending me the P47D-23 , I had downloaded it from the 3 sites that had it, none worked. Seems as if the Free Flight site has an exclusive on it now. Great Plane!

Dave

www.thefreeflightsite.com

[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.

[hubbabubba]

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.

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...

[smilo]

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.

--------------------------
just watch, i'll probably get into it
up to my elbows for saying that.
so it goes

[No Dice]

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

[smilo]

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.

[hubbabubba]

(...)

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.

OK; you're average. Happy now?

[No Dice]

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

[Ivan]

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.

[smilo]

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.

[Dave Cumming]

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

[Ivan]

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.