joseph@garfield.UUCP (Joseph Dawson) (03/09/88)
Jet is a nice program but I think with very little work it
could have been a WICKED program. First off I would like to comment
on a BUG that some one said was in JET. First off I would like to say
that I have found one BUG in the program. The book with Jet said that
the AMI-& are long range and the AMI-9 are short range. While in the
game you can shoot and lock and hit a target at 100 miles with an AMI-9
and the AMI-7 will NOT make it past 9 miles. (I don't know what is
the TRUE story. What is wrong the BOOK or the SOFTWARE?)
A few ideas for the next version of the Jet Software...
(1) Be able to team up over the modem and fight a target!
(2) Have some hills within the Multi-Player mode.
(3) Broken clouds! [NOTE: Not like FSII! Clouds that are BROKEN
up a little.]
(4) You have no way of knowing if someone is using GUNS on you and
hitting you until you are dead!
(5) Missiles are to easy to avoid. [It can't be that easy to avoid
a missile in real life, is it?]
(6) Have a few more planes to pick from. [The MIG-23 would be nice!
And the JUMP JET would be FUN!]
One other thing... Some person said that if you pull up very
hard and then shut down the power on the plane you will just hang in
mid air. I have tried this a lot of times and I can't get this to happen.
I just stall and fall back to earth nose first. That brings up another
BUG you CAN'T make the F16 go straight up for ever. It should be
able to do this because it has a lot of thrust.
----------------------------END OF JET--------------------------------
On to my Supra 2400... I have and love my Supra 2400. I
paid $250 (Can.) for it. As I use it on a BBS I would have a lot
of people telling me that they are getting modem noise. But as no
users have said that Modem noise is a problem I would say that it is
a good buy! [It was the same price that I paid for my 1200 Volks modem!
And you can play JET and FSII over the modem with my old VOLKS!]
------------------------END OF SUPRA 2000-----------------------------
When you multi-task a 3.5'' drive it will slow up well over
700%. My question is how bad is a HARD DRIVE for this? I am working
on a software package that will have to do a lot of drive Multi-Tasking
and I would like to know the best way to stop this from slowing down
the system to much.
Well I put this all in one letter because our Sysops on this
End like it that way and I like my account on this End!
Joseph Dawsonugmiker@sunybcs.uucp (Michael Reilly) (03/14/88)
In article <4578@garfield.UUCP> joseph@garfield.UUCP (Joseph Dawson) writes: >BUG you CAN'T make the F16 go straight up for ever. It should be >able to do this because it has a lot of thrust. >Joseph Dawson sorry, I don't think ANY airplane can go "straight up" for ever, there are just too many stress factors to control, not to mention the fact that for a pilot to handle/survive going straight up at mach 2+ for an extended amount of time he would have to be able to withstand a very high G count.....some stunts done by the blue angels, and other flight teams, can't be done by most pilots, not only due to the skill needed, but because of the problem of some blacking out due to the G's.... maybe we should just get a space shuttle simulator, that can go straight up.. and then you can have some fun with fixing satelites and stuff..... :-) mike Mike Reilly President of UGCSA University of Buffalo Computer Science csnet: ugmiker@buffalo.CSNET uucp: ..!{nike|watmath,alegra,decvax}!sunybcs!ugmiker BITNET: ugmiker@sunybcs.BITNET <-OR-> ACSCMPR@ubvmsc.BITNET
yann@ai.toronto.edu (Yann le Cun) (03/16/88)
In article <9280@sunybcs.UUCP> ugmiker@sunybcs.UUCP (Michael Reilly) writes: >In article <4578@garfield.UUCP> joseph@garfield.UUCP (Joseph Dawson) writes: > >>BUG you CAN'T make the F16 go straight up for ever. It should be >>able to do this because it has a lot of thrust. >>Joseph Dawson > >sorry, I don't think ANY airplane can go "straight up" for ever, there are just >too many stress factors to control, not to mention the fact that for a pilot >to handle/survive going straight up at mach 2+ for an extended amount of time >he would have to be able to withstand a very high G count..... I don't see why the G count should be high if you go straight up.... You can go straight up at constant speed, in which case G=1. Anyway, It is possible with the F18 in JET to remain nose up at constant altitude WITH THE ENGINE TURNED OFF (!!!!), it is easier to do it if you look at the plane from the control tower on the carrier. These "fly-by-wire" planes are really too easy to fly. Yann le Cun yann@ai.toronto.edu, yann@ai.toronto.cdn AI Group, Dept of Computer Science yann%ai.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 {uunet,watmath}!ai.toronto.edu!yann
joe@dayton.UUCP (Joseph P. Larson) (03/16/88)
In article <9280@sunybcs.UUCP> ugmiker@sunybcs.UUCP (Michael Reilly) writes: >sorry, I don't think ANY airplane can go "straight up" for ever, there are just >too many stress factors to control, not to mention the fact that for a pilot >to handle/survive going straight up at mach 2+ for an extended amount of time >he would have to be able to withstand a very high G count..... Sorry, but this is inaccurate. The speed at which you are traveling has absolutely nothing to do with G factors as long as you are moving in a straight line. Nothing at all. In any case, the F16 has a thrust-to-weight ratio greater than 1. This means it can accellerate pointed straight up. (This assumes you're already at flying speed before you try it....) Of course, they can't do it forever. The F16 is not an orbital vehicle. It has a definite ceiling of operation (somewhere around 80000 feet, I believe). So at 400 MPH (a reasonable speed to climb straight up), this means they could only do it for about 2 minutes. (80000 / 5280 is around 16 miles. 400 / 60 is around 7 Miles per minute. These are approximate numbers....) There are probably other limits such as difficulty in continuing to fly at only 400 MPH at 80000 feet (the air is too thin) and things like this. ======= To those who want to know, I'll discuss G's for a second. If you already know about them, type "N" at the next available break ("Which means NOW" -Toots Mutant, "Ruby"). G's are a measure of the amount of force an object is under. 1 G is equivalent to standing on the ground at sea level on Earth. When you accellerate, you are experiencing a force in some direction causing your velocity vector to change direction. Note that accelleration doesn't mean you have to increase speed -- just change the vector either by changing the direction you are moving or by changing the speed or both. If you jump off your roof, for instance, you accellerate towards the center of the earth (center of mass, that is) at 32 feet per second per second (or just under 10 meters....). You are experiencing 1 G of accelleration, but because your entire body is being pulled equally, you are actually feeling 0 Gs of force. (Some science fiction writers play with gravity as a means of accomplishing high-G manuevers without physical damage....) If you are in a plane that is climbing straight up without accellerating, you will feel 1 G of force due to gravity. You will not feel anything more than that. If the plane has enough thrust that the thrust-to-weight ratio is 2 (plane weighs 2 tons but has 4 tons of thrust), it can climb straight up, accellerating a 1 G, so you'll feel 2 Gs of force. However, most times that one feels high-Gs, is because of a turn. You're still changing your velocity vector even though you are probably actually slowing down a little (unless you add a little more thrust that you had before) due to a variety of things I won't go into (like the fact that you're disturbing the air more to help you turn). If you're moving at 700 MPH (just under Mach 1, which is where a lot of air combat is going to happen) and you pull a 180 inside, say, 20 seconds, this means that you have changed your velocity vector by 1400 MPH in 20 seconds. This works out to 103 feet per second per second on the average. This is about 3 Gs. Pretty mild. To see how that works out, look at it this way: 1400 MPH times 5280 feet/mile is 7,392,000 feet/hour. (Change in velocity) Or divided by 3600 seconds/hour is 2060 feet/second. (Change in velocity) In 20 seconds, this averages to 103 feet/second/second. (Average accell.) Most pilots talk about 1-minute or 2-minute turns. Very mild. However, if a fighter took 20 seconds to turn around to face an opponent, he's going to be in trouble. At the very least, his opponent isn't 20 seconds behind him, so the opponent is *still* going to be behind him once he's turned around. The numbers get pretty wild. Imagine a 20-second 180 at Mach 3. We're talking 9 Gs. 7 Gs sustained (more than a couple of seconds) are likely to black you out. 9 Gs for 20 seconds won't leave you awake. They don't pull 20-second 180s at Mach 3. You'll also notice that air-show manuevers are NOT at sound-barrier speeds.... Whatever. Enough of Elementary Physics -- Motion. -J -- UUCP: rutgers!dayton!joe Dayton Hudson Department Store Company ATT : (612) 375-3537 Joe Larson/MIS 1060 (standard disclaimer...) 700 on the Mall Mpls, Mn. 55402
cjp@antique.UUCP (Charles Poirier) (03/16/88)
In article <9280@sunybcs.UUCP> ugmiker@sunybcs.UUCP (Michael Reilly) writes: >In article <4578@garfield.UUCP> joseph@garfield.UUCP (Joseph Dawson) writes: >>BUG you CAN'T make the F16 go straight up for ever. It should be >>able to do this because it has a lot of thrust. >... >to handle/survive going straight up at mach 2+ for an extended amount of time >he would have to be able to withstand a very high G count..... Going straight up at constant speed (even if it's Mach 2), you would feel exactly 1 G. Maybe JET is modeling the lack of oxygen when you go too high. That'd be real effective for cutting one's thrust. -- Charles Poirier (decvax,ihnp4,attmail)!vax135!cjp "Docking complete... Docking complete... Docking complete..."
mph@rover.UUCP (Mark Huth) (03/25/88)
In article <9280@sunybcs.UUCP> ugmiker@sunybcs.UUCP (Michael Reilly) writes: >In article <4578@garfield.UUCP> joseph@garfield.UUCP (Joseph Dawson) writes: > >>BUG you CAN'T make the F16 go straight up for ever. It should be >>able to do this because it has a lot of thrust. >>Joseph Dawson > >sorry, I don't think ANY airplane can go "straight up" for ever, there are just Yeah, it's true that any airbreather going straight up for a period of time will reach its limit - but this is fundamentatly caused by running out of air. If the plane has more thrust than weight and drag, then it can accellerate vertically. The F16 should be able to climb vertically to an altitude of well over 100,000 feet. >too many stress factors to control, not to mention the fact that for a pilot >to handle/survive going straight up at mach 2+ for an extended amount of time >he would have to be able to withstand a very high G count.....some stunts done Well, it's a nice theory, but it won't withstand an analysis of the physics involved. The upward speed has no bearing on the matter - travelling away from the earth at a fixed velocity will have the pilot experience one G accelleration (the force of gravity). Most anyone can stand laying on his back. >by the blue angels, and other flight teams, can't be done by most pilots, not >only due to the skill needed, but because of the problem of some blacking out >due to the G's.... Many fighter maneuvers do involve high G forces due to radial accelleration in turns and pulling out of dives. Modern airframes are generally better than the pilots with regard to handling flight stress in combat. Mark Huth