maintain depth

[melin71]

Is this a bug in the game, only way for me to maintain depth like 150 m i need allmost to have full speed. else is just never stop to dive.

[Webster]

i think there is a diving bug in the game i read somewhere, maybe a mod will fix it.

not sure of all the details on it :06: so to avoid it i dont dive i just use periscope depth only

[Zedi]

It's fixed by the UHS:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=168012

[melin71]

thx for the fix

[SeaTurtle]

Same problem here, what a pain. :D

Do you know how to get just the fix without having to install the full mod ?

Thanks !

[Ragtag]

Same problem here, what a pain. :D

Do you know how to get just the fix without having to install the full mod ?

Thanks !

I would like to know this myself. Anyone knows what and where to edit?

[Zedi]

As a total nab in moding, I would say .. the answer is in the .sim and .zon files in the submarine folder. I tried once to fix it using the goblin editor, but I failed. Maybe a comparison between the UHS and stock files can give you an answer...

[stoppro]

the'improved pitch and roll' mod works for me

[Ragtag]

As a total nab in moding, I would say .. the answer is in the .sim and .zon files in the submarine folder. I tried once to fix it using the goblin editor, but I failed. Maybe a comparison between the UHS and stock files can give you an answer...

I tried taking a peak at those files in goblin but i get all sorts of errors opening them so i gave up trying.

[DelphiUniverse]

Is this a bug in the game, only way for me to maintain depth like 150 m i need allmost to have full speed. else is just never stop to dive.

This isn't a bug. The deeper you get, the higher pressure you reach. The u-boat is like an airplane in the air. Your dive scope keeps the u-boat level. If speed drops you will sink, naturally.

It's the same principle with airplanes. The higher you get in the air the less dense the air will be and the greater speed will be needed to maintain straight and level flight.

It's not a bug. It's a shame they "fixed" something that should not be fixed.

Consider the depth when you dive: (The "square" was a typo, it should be cubic)

http://i35.tinypic.com/popx4.png

[Krauter]

This makes absolutely no sense..

Yes the Submarine is like an Airplane with the Diveplanes in the sense that they "drive" the Submarine to a lower depth. Just as an Aircrafts Ailerons, Rudder and Elevators help it achieve its altitude.

The difference between a Submarine and an Aircraft though is that the Aircraft needs to be constantly moving at a certain speed and angle of attack to keep flight.

The submarine needs lower speeds (obviously it cannot reach the same speeds as an aircraft but in perspective). And has the advantage of buoyancy. If a submarine is badly trimmed and has negative or positive trim then it will have to keep up a higher speed and make more use of its dive planes.. if it has neutral buoyancy then all it needs to do is maintain steerageway so that the helm does not lose control..


Krauter

[Wolfling04]

I have the same bug, and I have UHS installed but my issue is if I order 150M I actually only get down to 135M, is this correct?

[DelphiUniverse]

This makes absolutely no sense..

Yes the Submarine is like an Airplane with the Diveplanes in the sense that they "drive" the Submarine to a lower depth.

They don't only drive it to a lower depth. when the dive plates is angled so that the u-boat is going to surface, it will keep "fighting" against pressure IF you have set the u-boat to a specific speed.

There comes a depth when the u-boat cannot handle anymore depth and needs speed to compensate for it. This is where you're mistaken.

It's not a submarine btw, it's a u-boat.

This makes absolutely no sense..
Just as an Aircrafts Ailerons, Rudder and Elevators help it achieve its altitude.
The difference between a Submarine and an Aircraft though is that the Aircraft needs to be constantly moving at a certain speed and angle of attack to keep flight.


It doesnt need to constantly keep moving to keep flight. This is where you are mistaken. A piper cub can fly with zero velocity. It's called velocity, not speed btw. You seem to misunderstand the principle of flight.

When you angle the u-boat upwards, you decrease the surface of the u-boat and therefore lowers the water pressure from above by huge numbers.

[Sailor Steve]

It's not a bug. It's a shame they "fixed" something that should not be fixed.
The pressure is on all sides of the boat, pushing down, inwards, and UP. In fact the bottom of the boat is deeper and under more pressure, therefore the tendency is to rise, like a balloon. It must be trimmed in order to maintain depth. The reason a boat underwater tends to sink is that the boat leaks, which increases the internal weight of the boat, requiring constant retrimming.

A boat at 200 meters can rise or dive with the dive planes even if it is only travelling at two knots. If it stops it has no way of changing depth except with the pumps, which make a lot of noise. If the boat is moving it has control, though this may be compromised by damage allowing water in.

Bottom line: If your boat in the game can't be controlled at depth except with high speeds, and with no damage, it is indeed a bug.

[DelphiUniverse]

The pressure is on all sides of the boat, pushing down, inwards, and UP.
Yes but it is the top pressure that is really relevant for maintaining depth. The reason it is pushing in all directions is the same principle as how quicksand works. Water molecules "roll".

Bottom line: If your boat in the game can't be controlled at depth except with high speeds, and with no damage, it is indeed a bug.

You CAN control it, with the pumps. Also do not forget the difference between cold and hot water.

[Wolfling04]

The pressure is on all sides of the boat, pushing down, inwards, and UP. In fact the bottom of the boat is deeper and under more pressure, therefore the tendency is to rise, like a balloon. It must be trimmed in order to maintain depth. The reason a boat underwater tends to sink is that the boat leaks, which increases the internal weight of the boat, requiring constant retrimming.


Thanks Sailor Steve, answers my question.:salute:

[Krauter]

Lol oh God.. not another Argument Delphin?

First of all: I DO understand the principles of flight (ie: Speed [Velocity is in fact the energy of the aircraft moving forward], Gravity, Drag and Lift..)

Second: As Steve pointed out the Submarine (U-boat if you want to be specific.. A U-boat is in fact a submersible craft thus it belongs to the 'submarine' family of craft..) has pressure on all sides, the same as when an aircraft rises to a higher altitude it loses pressure (and thus air density) out in the atmosphere. How is the Downwards pressure relevant to keeping depth? If you have an upwards pressure that will play an equally important role in maintaining depth (Laws of physics.. Every action has an equal and opposite re-action)

Third: The point of NOT using the pumps is to remain quiet ~ stealthy, invisble <--- the tools of the submarine trade... Thus using speed to maintain depth is inadvisable as it broadcasts your position to anyone listening.

[DelphiUniverse]

First of all: I DO understand the principles of flight (ie: Speed [Velocity is in fact the energy of the aircraft moving forward], Gravity, Drag and Lift..)


You may or may not, but in the posts below, you didnt profess your knowledge. Perhaps you can improve on it in the next posts for all I know.


How is the Downwards pressure relevant to keeping depth? If you have an upwards pressure that will play an equally important role in maintaining depth (Laws of physics.. Every action has an equal and opposite re-action)


Downward pressure decreases when the angle of attack increases or decreases.


Third: The point of NOT using the pumps is to remain quiet ~ stealthy, invisble <--- the tools of the submarine trade... Thus using speed to maintain depth is inadvisable as it broadcasts your position to anyone listening.

I don't suggest using the pumps, I suggest maintaining a healthy depth and then a healthy trim to maintain depth.

[Krauter]

You may or may not, but in the posts below, you didnt profess your knowledge. Perhaps you can improve on it in the next posts for all I know.



Downward pressure decreases when the angle of attack increases or decreases.



I don't suggest using the pumps, I suggest maintaining a healthy depth and then a healthy trim to maintain depth.

Your arguments are turning in circles.

I'm not going to bite the bait about my knowledge or lack thereof of flight and it's principles. This is a subsim about submarines.. if you'd like to pursue that discussion PM me.

Downward pressure may increase as the *dive angle* increases or decreases as you concede. BUT so too will the pressure inwards and UPWARDS.


You CAN control it, with the pumps.

Here you state to use the pumps. I may just be pulling up random quotes, but I digress, my point is, using the pumps, though they're useful, defeats the purpose of the submarines stealthy nature. Unless you're contact is deaf or is plain stupid, using the pumps is not advisable.

[Wolfling04]

Get your suit Krauter :D

[Krauter]

Get your suit Krauter :D
:haha: I love a good healthy debate

[DelphiUniverse]

Your arguments are turning in circles.
My arguments is not turning in circles. I said you "CAN" use the pump, it does not mean you should. In my next argument I clearly said i favor a healthy dive policy.


I'm not going to bite the bait about my knowledge or lack thereof of flight and it's principles. This is a subsim about submarines.. if you'd like to pursue that discussion PM me.

You have already done so, there is no need to continue on your faulty analysis regarding the flight elements you posted earlier.



Downward pressure may increase as the *dive angle* increases or decreases as you concede. BUT so too will the pressure inwards and UPWARDS.
Yes, how could it be that we agreed on that. But you missed the point. The point is that you are working against less forces when it is pitched and therefore you are able to maintain depth more easily with engine power.


Here you state to use the pumps. I may just be pulling up random quotes, but I digress, my point is, using the pumps, though they're useful, defeats the purpose of the submarines stealthy nature. Unless you're contact is deaf or is plain stupid, using the pumps is not advisable.

Look in the top of this post.

[Wolfling04]

Ya know I just realized something, the deeper you go the more buoyant the boat will become,

Take this example, put air in a balloon and hold it a foot under water, then hold it 3 ft under water, at the 3 foot mark you will feel more resistance pushing the balloon upwards towards the surface, same basic principle with a sub.

At least this is my experience playing around with water and stuff as a kid. Don't take my comments and try to explain if I'm right or wrong, I'm simply stating my experience when I was a kid.

@Krauter I love good debates to but I must go to work in 20min and cant debate right now :damn:

[DelphiUniverse]

Ya know I just realized something, the deeper you go the more buoyant the boat will become,

Take this example, put air in a balloon and hold it a foot under water, then hold it 3 ft under water, at the 3 foot mark you will feel more resistance pushing the balloon upwards towards the surface, same basic principle with a sub.

At least this is my experience playing around with water and stuff as a kid. Don't take my comments and try to explain if I'm right or wrong, I'm simply stating my experience when I was a kid.

@Krauter I love good debates to but I must go to work in 20min and cant debate right now :damn:

It's true. But do you also acknoledge the fact that as you continue to go deeper, the water pressure weight will overcome the baloon-effect?

[Wolfling04]

I dont know, I could only get 3 feet of water

[Krauter]

Its all good Wolf :)

You are correct though, the deeper you go the more pressure is exerted inwards AND outwards (much like an airplane that as the higher it goes, the more the pressure inside the airplane tries to escape into the atmosphere).

In my next argument I clearly said i favor a healthy dive policy

Please explain this 'healthy dive policy' for my benefit because it does not make sense to me and I can't infer to what it means.

There is no need to continue on your faulty analysis regarding the flight elements you posted earlier.

-.-..

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/princ1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Air_Cadets
Thinking that if you go gliding or take flight training, as I had to, you would at least understand a little bit of the principles of flight

http://www.aerotraining.com/reference/AC%2061-23C_Chapter_1_Canada.pdf

The point is that you are working against less forces when it is pitched and therefore you are able to maintain depth more easily with engine power.

How does pitching down or up exert less or more force on the submarine? Yes the part of the submarine that is at a higher depth will experience less pressure then the part of the submarine that is lower then it, but that does not validate your point that it is easier to maintain depth when the submarine is pitched.

I dont know, I could only get 3 feet of water

:haha:

Cheers

Krauter

[DelphiUniverse]

Please explain this 'healthy dive policy' for my benefit because it does not make sense to me and I can't infer to what it means.

I already explained it. By choosing a healthy depth and speed.


-.-..

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/princ1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Air_Cadets
Thinking that if you go gliding or take flight training, as I had to, you would at least understand a little bit of the principles of flight

http://www.aerotraining.com/reference/AC%2061-23C_Chapter_1_Canada.pdf

Are you continuing with the flight after all? Are you suggesting that these links will overcome your previous statements?


How does pitching down or up exert less or more force on the submarine? Yes the part of the submarine that is at a higher depth will experience less pressure then the part of the submarine that is lower then it, but that does not validate your point that it is easier to maintain depth when the submarine is pitched.


Pitching it is a neccesary evil to maintain depth. If you lower speed you have to increase pitch. It has to do with the angle water molecules attacks your u-boat. Water molecules "roll" as I said earlier, and you decrease the exposed surface of the u-boat at a pitched position.

[Krauter]

I already explained it. By choosing a healthy depth and speed.


Are you continuing with the flight after all? Are you suggesting that these links will overcome your previous statements?



Pitching it is a neccesary evil to maintain depth. If you lower speed you have to increase pitch. It has to do with the angle water molecules attacks your u-boat. Water molecules "roll" as I said earlier, and you decrease the exposed surface of the u-boat at a pitched position.

Then explain the 'healthy' part of your diving and speed?

Your thinking submarines are alike to airplanes when they are not..

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_submarines_work

http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/submarine.htm

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_a_submarine_control_its_depth_in_water

Hopefully you gather the correct information from these links (assuming you are even following them).

I am done however because trying to prove the point to you is like trying to explain things to a child or someone who does not even provide facts, nor follows up on facts provided by others.

Cheers,

Krauter

No I am pointing to the fact that I do have some knowledge on the principles of flight. These links will help validate my experience and the points I made.

[robbo180265]

Perhaps this link may also help chaps *grabs popcorn*


http://www.heiszwolf.com/subs/tech/tech01.html

[DelphiUniverse]

No I am pointing to the fact that I do have some knowledge on the principles of flight. These links will help validate my experience and the points I made.

I am not googling anything like you are. But you havent made any points whatsoever, so here is your last mistake. The only points you made was about the faulty analysis of airo dynamics. You have only been asking questions to me, never made any point. I suggest that you dont walk into a self delusion. Watch through your posts again. And have a nice day you too.

[DelphiUniverse]

Perhaps this link may also help chaps *grabs popcorn*


http://www.heiszwolf.com/subs/tech/tech01.html

Basically, there are two ways to submerge a boat: dynamic diving and static diving. Many model submarines use the dynamic method while static diving is used by all military submarines. Dynamic diving boats are submarines that inherently float that is, they always have a positive buoyancy. This type of boat is made to dive by using the speed of the boat in combination with the dive planes to force the boat under water. This is very similar to the way airplanes fly.

hehe

[robbo180265]

I am not googling anything like you are. But you havent made any points whatsoever, so here is your last mistake. The only points you made was about the faulty analysis of airo dynamics. You have only been asking questions to me, never made any point. I suggest that you dont walk into a self delusion. Watch through your posts again. And have a nice day you too.

Actually there was nothing faulty in Krauter's explanation of flight dynamics that I could see matey - mind you it might have been obscured in all the hot air you've been blowing:O:

[DelphiUniverse]

Actually there was nothing faulty in Krauter's explanation of flight dynamics that I could see matey - mind you it might have been obscured in all the hot air you've been blowing:O:

Oh yes there is. I explained them in the earlier posts. If you want to disprove them, I welcome you to do that.

[robbo180265]

hehe

Basically, there are two ways to submerge a boat: dynamic diving and static diving. Many model submarines use the dynamic method while static diving is used by all military submarines. Dynamic diving boats are submarines that inherently float that is, they always have a positive buoyancy. This type of boat is made to dive by using the speed of the boat in combination with the dive planes to force the boat under water. This is very similar to the way airplanes fly.

Kinda shot yourself in the foot there matey , unless you were talking about Model submarines all along.:hmmm:

[DelphiUniverse]

Basically, there are two ways to submerge a boat: dynamic diving and static diving. Many model submarines use the dynamic method while static diving is used by all military submarines. Dynamic diving boats are submarines that inherently float that is, they always have a positive buoyancy. This type of boat is made to dive by using the speed of the boat in combination with the dive planes to force the boat under water. This is very similar to the way airplanes fly.

Kinda shot yourself in the foot there matey , unless you were talking about Model submarines all along.


I found it funny because its an element that exist in both situations. It's just that there is more complexity in the other method.

But my MAIN point about the similarity between u-boats and airplanes was not about this. It was about low vs high pressure. God forbid if you had asked me, i would have told you. :DL

[Lemke]

I already explained it. By choosing a healthy depth and speed.

How do you do that, when you have 10+ destroyers over your head, listening for the faintest noise to locate you and smash you into pieces???

[DelphiUniverse]

How do you do that, when you have 10+ destroyers over your head, listening for the faintest noise to locate you and smash you into pieces???

Go for minimum speed ahead and use silent running and go a bit deep and they wont hear you. This is my experience, it doesnt take much more than that. Ofcourse they will try to find you randomly and perhaps follow you by share luck, but they wont find you.

EDIT: If you have the VIIC/41 u-boat and you have a trained crue (with abilities) you are able to take your u-boat down to almost 300 metres. But 200 metres is more than enough. When you are that deep your u-boat will be beneath layers of cold water. Cold water shields sound better than hot water. Use these layers of cold water to hide the engine sound.

[longam]

You just go for neutral buoyancy then dive as deep or shallow as you want using the dive planes. Of course based on your pressure hull capability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_buoyancy

[Ragtag]

This isn't a bug. The deeper you get, the higher pressure you reach. The u-boat is like an airplane in the air. Your dive scope keeps the u-boat level. If speed drops you will sink, naturally.

It's the same principle with airplanes. The higher you get in the air the less dense the air will be and the greater speed will be needed to maintain straight and level flight.

It's not a bug. It's a shame they "fixed" something that should not be fixed.

Consider the depth when you dive: (The "square" was a typo, it should be cubic)

http://i35.tinypic.com/popx4.png

It is indeed a bug with VIIA/B after 75 meters. A confirmed bug afaik that never made the last patch. With later models it doesn't occur before 150m or so.
Second, this "feature" is totally meaningless untill we get the means to control and trim the boat since the crew obviously can't do it, even with the skills maxed.

[DelphiUniverse]

It is indeed a bug with VIIA/B after 75 meters. A confirmed bug afaik that never made the last patch. With later models it doesn't occur before 150m or so.
Second, this "feature" is totally meaningless untill we get the means to control and trim the boat since the crew obviously can't do it, even with the skills maxed.

I did my test with the VIIC/41. And it doesnt happen until you are below critical depth, so there is no problems with the VIIC afaik and happens only when speed is low or zero.

He didnt mention what type of u-boat.

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

There should be a 'maintain depth' button on the interface.

[Krauter]

There is.. if you're using Churchs Keyboard Commands it's A

[Ragtag]

It doesn't help!

[Ducimus]

You know I love watching people gnashing their teeth over this subject. It (and a few other minor items) are inherited behavior from SH4. Seems like most people here aren't aware of that for some reason. :har:

So here's the short version:

After 196 -200 meters (or 600 feet), there's this magical barrier you pass where the submarine's pumps can't keep up with the leaks. As i recall from watching the development of the NYGM anti-hummingbird mod, your sub is always leaking. This particular behavior, is inheirted from SH3 to some extent. You don't see this because a leak below a certain amount is not reported on the damage screen. So as you cross what i refer to the 200 meter/600 foot barrier, your boat loses boyancy and starts sinking. The only way to stop the decent, is to accelerate to flank speed.... err im sorry.. "extreme speed ahead".

Order rise all you want, but your boat will not move to a shallower depth until you blow ballast, thereby increasing boyancy. Reduce your speed , and you start to sink because you have too much negative boyancy. Hency why i say, pumps can't keep up with the leaks after 200 meters. (edit: supporting evidence is behavior in trim gauges. They peg out after 600 feet) How to adjust the pump rate? I never did figure that out, or even if it's possible.

An interesting side note is that crash speed (at least in SH4), seems to have an effect on this. ( http://forum.kickinbak.com/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=1885 )

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

I think I'll rather command a Destroyer than a lousy sub.:D

[Krauter]

You know I love watching people gnashing their teeth over this subject. It (and a few other minor items) are inherited behavior from SH4. Seems like most people here aren't aware of that for some reason. :har:

So here's the short version:

After 196 -200 meters (or 600 feet), there's this magical barrier you pass where the submarine's pumps can't keep up with the leaks. As i recall from watching the development of the NYGM anti-hummingbird mod, your sub is always leaking. This particular behavior, is inheirted from SH3 to some extent. You don't see this because a leak below a certain amount is not reported on the damage screen. So as you cross what i refer to the 200 meter/600 foot barrier, your boat loses boyancy and starts sinking. The only way to stop the decent, is to accelerate to flank speed.... err im sorry.. "extreme speed ahead".

Order rise all you want, but your boat will not move to a shallower depth until you blow ballast, thereby increasing boyancy. Reduce your speed , and you start to sink because you have too much negative boyancy. Hency why i say, pumps can't keep up with the leaks after 200 meters. (edit: supporting evidence is behavior in trim gauges. They peg out after 600 feet) How to adjust the pump rate? I never did figure that out, or even if it's possible.

An interesting side note is that crash speed (at least in SH4), seems to have an effect on this. ( http://forum.kickinbak.com/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=1885 )

See I found this weird because in SH4 while doing Dive Tests (Kudos to TMO for Training Missions :D I went all the way to 1000ft at 1/3 and could ascend with no problem.

Same thing in this game where I took a VIIC out for kicks and dove as deep as she'd go. True, while at All Stop she sank to the bottom, but once I got to 569M and went 1/3 I could control her pretty easily. I forget my Mod loadout at the time, but I have yet to try it again. I can test it maybe tomorrow if you'd all like the results?

Cheers,

Krauter

[Ragtag]

You know I love watching people gnashing their teeth over this subject. It (and a few other minor items) are inherited behavior from SH4. Seems like most people here aren't aware of that for some reason. :har:

So here's the short version:

After 196 -200 meters (or 600 feet), there's this magical barrier you pass where the submarine's pumps can't keep up with the leaks. As i recall from watching the development of the NYGM anti-hummingbird mod, your sub is always leaking. This particular behavior, is inheirted from SH3 to some extent. You don't see this because a leak below a certain amount is not reported on the damage screen. So as you cross what i refer to the 200 meter/600 foot barrier, your boat loses boyancy and starts sinking. The only way to stop the decent, is to accelerate to flank speed.... err im sorry.. "extreme speed ahead".

Order rise all you want, but your boat will not move to a shallower depth until you blow ballast, thereby increasing boyancy. Reduce your speed , and you start to sink because you have too much negative boyancy. Hency why i say, pumps can't keep up with the leaks after 200 meters. (edit: supporting evidence is behavior in trim gauges. They peg out after 600 feet) How to adjust the pump rate? I never did figure that out, or even if it's possible.

An interesting side note is that crash speed (at least in SH4), seems to have an effect on this. ( http://forum.kickinbak.com/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=1885 )

The point is that it happens at 75 meters. Can't go silent and maintain depth over 75m with the VIIA/B. Again, this is a confirmed bug that didn't make it in the last patch afaik. I would like to fix that and it IS possible. It's been done in 2 mods but i don't want all the additional stuff that has been changed in those mods.

[DelphiUniverse]

I think I'll rather command a Destroyer than a lousy sub.:D

I bought both Silent Hunter 2 and Destroyer Command. You could link the two games so that one could play sub and the other could play with a destroyer hunting each other.

It's a shame they don't make a modern version of destroyer command. It was as fun (if not more fun) than silent hunter. Damn good game, but outdated graphics.

The fletcher class destroyers had 5 cannons you could play with. Some powerful stuff there.

I think a cruiser game would also be fun, I Don't know if a battleship game would be that fun to play in the long run, but it would have been damn cool to have a battleship game with the immense graphics of silent hunter 5. Walking around the huge platform in full 3d and play around with the cannons, anti air guns etc.

They should definitely make a game where you can start off with a destroyer and work yourself up to a battleship. Go convoy hunting with bismarck, that would be devastating to the poor 30+ convoys. Pounding off 15 inch shells 15 miles away is not perticularly "exciting" to the old captains in the merchant ships.

[DavyJonesFootlocker]

Yeah, I heard that.

[Akula4745]

Same problem here, what a pain. :D

Do you know how to get just the fix without having to install the full mod ?

Thanks !


So after all the dust settled... did anyone figure out what files to modify so we did not have to install the full mod?

[Ragtag]

So after all the dust settled... did anyone figure out what files to modify so we did not have to install the full mod?

Nope, waiting for answer. Meanwhile i've started using the goblin editor trying to locate which values to edit by comparing the sim files.

[Zedi]

I see no point in not using UHS to correct this bug.
There is no conflicts with any mods except IRAI, but IRAI brings only good stuff, so first install UHS and then IRAI and overwrite the files. I did the same and I have no problem at all. Actually UHS and IRAI should be included in the retail dvd.

[Ragtag]

I see no point in not using UHS to correct this bug.
There is no conflicts with any mods except IRAI, but IRAI brings only good stuff, so first install UHS and then IRAI and overwrite the files. I did the same and I have no problem at all. Actually UHS and IRAI should be included in the retail dvd.

It's not compatible with Environment 3.2 and NewUI TDC 4.0.3 by TDW mods. Big reasons for me not to use this mod.

[Zedi]

Install UHS first, then all the rest and overwrite the files. This way the maintain depth fix from UHS will remain as the mods listed by you are not dealing with this bug and will not overwrite this part. You have nothing to loose by trying this solution...

[Krauter]

How is it not compatible with those files?

For Env. The Submrine folders conflict in the manner that Env rides the sub higher, UHS Lower (More realistic). Delete the submarine folder in Env. 3.1 to fix this

TDWs Mod conflicts with the Submarine folder again, but that is just for the Radio DF Loop and the Antannae

Finally if you install it before IRAI then there is no problem

Cheers

Krauter

[Ragtag]

How is it not compatible with those files?

For Env. The Submrine folders conflict in the manner that Env rides the sub higher, UHS Lower (More realistic). Delete the submarine folder in Env. 3.1 to fix this

TDWs Mod conflicts with the Submarine folder again, but that is just for the Radio DF Loop and the Antannae

Finally if you install it before IRAI then there is no problem

Cheers

Krauter

According to TDW it also breaks the snorkle button in the UI. I like the game as it is for me now except this issue. I just want to add this fix nothing else. All i need is some small info so i can fix it myself :)
Gonna try Magnums suggestion.

[Krauter]

luls no break for me.. if you install TDWs mod AFTER UHS there should be no problems.. butmeh its your game :)

[Wolfling04]

It's not compatible with Environment 3.2 and NewUI TDC 4.0.3 by TDW mods. Big reasons for me not to use this mod.

I use both these mods and UHS, I just install UHS after those mods and I havn't had any issues

[TheDarkWraith]

According to TDW it also breaks the snorkle button in the UI. I like the game as it is for me now except this issue.

it doesn't really break the snorkel button but rather defeats it's purpose. The snorkel depth will go from where I have it to whatever the files overwriting my submarine folder's files says snorkel depth is (which is probably the same as periscope depth)

[SeaTurtle]

I don't have a Type VIIC until now, still playing with a VIIB but if the VIIC is able to maintain its depth above 200 meters, I think I will just copy the VIIC files over the VIIB, is it possible ?

[Wolfling04]

I would highly doubt it

The fact is the depth bug is not that bad, in my game I have to go 15m deeper then the sub will go ie. if I want 150 I have to set the depth for 165m.

Not a big bug IMO, I would just deal with the bug until a mod or hopefully another patch is released and not risk breaking the game too badly ;)

[Faamecanic]

This isn't a bug. The deeper you get, the higher pressure you reach. The u-boat is like an airplane in the air. Your dive scope keeps the u-boat level. If speed drops you will sink, naturally.

It's the same principle with airplanes. The higher you get in the air the less dense the air will be and the greater speed will be needed to maintain straight and level flight.

It's not a bug. It's a shame they "fixed" something that should not be fixed.

Consider the depth when you dive: (The "square" was a typo, it should be cubic)



Your logic is totally flawed here. The pressure on the U-boat is EQUAL in all directions (below and above) hence it would have a net ZERO effect on neutral bouancy. The only thing effecting a submarine is gravity (which is constant at all depths) vs. the bouancy of the sub.

Airplanes as they go higher in the air ARE affected by the air density. As they go higher in altitude they either have to go faster OR increase thier angle of attack (the airflow vector vs. cord line of the wing). Eventually GRAVITY overcomes the lift vector and the airplane wing stalls.

[robbo180265]

Your logic is totally flawed here. The pressure on the U-boat is EQUAL in all directions (below and above) hence it would have a net ZERO effect on neutral bouancy. The only thing effecting a submarine is gravity (which is constant at all depths) vs. the bouancy of the sub.

Airplanes as they go higher in the air ARE affected by the air density. As they go higher in altitude they either have to go faster OR increase thier angle of attack (the airflow vector vs. cord line of the wing). Eventually GRAVITY overcomes the lift vector and the airplane wing stalls.


Here we go again:O:

[Trevally.]

I have both the UHS and TDW UI mods installed. I have tried changing the order of install but still I have this bug.

I have just received the VIIC/41 and tested depth again.

At slow speed I stall cant maintain depth below 180m. I will slow sink to the bottom if i dont increase speed to over 2 knots.

If I stop at a depth between 180 and 160m I will float to a depth of 160m then I can maintain depth. (This could be the same as what Wolfling04 is describing)

Any suggestions anyone?

[Wolfling04]

Here we go again:O:


Oh god....:rotfl2:

@Trev sounds you got kinda what I have, although I don't sink, I just always stay about 15m above the selected depth ( i have this after about 125m)

[Petr]

Has anyone found a way how to fix this problem? Which files must be changed? I dont want to have whole mod, but just files affecting this problem.
Does anyone have them?

[Wolfling04]

Nope, waiting for answer. Meanwhile i've started using the goblin editor trying to locate which values to edit by comparing the sim files.


^^^answer^^^:salute:

[Rip]

Your logic is totally flawed here. The pressure on the U-boat is EQUAL in all directions (below and above) hence it would have a net ZERO effect on neutral bouancy. The only thing effecting a submarine is gravity (which is constant at all depths) vs. the bouancy of the sub.

Airplanes as they go higher in the air ARE affected by the air density. As they go higher in altitude they either have to go faster OR increase thier angle of attack (the airflow vector vs. cord line of the wing). Eventually GRAVITY overcomes the lift vector and the airplane wing stalls.

Well if we are going to do this let's get it right. First I will say I know this as I have driven and ballasted an LA class sub although there are many differences the basic principles are the same.

There is a difference in pressure, as the water pressure is lower at the top of the boat at the bottom due to depth difference. The big factor however is that the external pressure is increasing while the pressure in the people compartment hopefully remains the same. This actually squeezes the sub reducing displacement. It also gets colder as you go down counteracting the reduced displacement somewhat.

A submarine will always be adjusting ballast to adjust for these factors and maintain a near neutral buoyancy. Depending on operations you will run a little heavy or light and counteract it with ship controls as required.

Now to that, the planes on a sub are used to change the up or down angle to use the forward motion to maintain or change depth. There is no "lifting action as water unlike air doesn't compress and creates no pressure differential. Water pressure is determined by depth and is constant.


:|\\

Rip

[DelphiUniverse]

Your logic is totally flawed here. The pressure on the U-boat is EQUAL in all directions (below and above) hence it would have a net ZERO effect on neutral bouancy. The only thing effecting a submarine is gravity (which is constant at all depths) vs. the bouancy of the sub.

Airplanes as they go higher in the air ARE affected by the air density. As they go higher in altitude they either have to go faster OR increase thier angle of attack (the airflow vector vs. cord line of the wing). Eventually GRAVITY overcomes the lift vector and the airplane wing stalls.

You missed the entire context, you read the first post of the discussion. My comparison between aircraft and u-boats (It's a german u-boat, not a submarine btw) is that low vs high pressure is both similarly relevant in both cases.

And secondly, airplanes do not have to go faster to keep flying, I explained this to another guy in a later post, which you didnt read. Speed has little to do with airodynamics, it just happen to be a great tool.

And thirdly, you also didnt follow in later posts about pressure points. Neutral boyancy is a tool to maintain specific depths, but what you are missing is that there is a limit to that boyancy, you simply do not understand (Like the rest who I argued with) that gravity and the weight of the water combined with less exposed surface has nothing to do with the pressure being equal on all sides.

You need to get a higher IQ to understand this, I understand that you do NOT understand it, but thats ok. There is hope for you!:DL

[robbo180265]

Don't say I didn't warn you.

He's always right - that is all:D

[Krauter]

Oh jesus.. Delphin please stop. You're making yourself look like a bigger and bigger ass..

I will just point to the fact that you're saying planes need not go faster to fly.. what rubbish is this. Seriously, stop hitting the bong and go to a physics class

[robbo180265]

Oh jesus.. Delphin please stop. You're making yourself look like a bigger and bigger ass..

I will just point to the fact that you're saying planes need not go faster to fly.. what rubbish is this. Seriously, stop hitting the bong and go to a physics class

It's not physics - you see, our IQ's are too low, otherwise we'd know about the amazing hovering aircraft!

[DelphiUniverse]

I will just point to the fact that you're saying planes need not go faster to fly.. what rubbish is this. Seriously, stop hitting the bong and go to a physics class

Speed is a tool, it is not a law for airodynamics to work. Get this straight.

[DelphiUniverse]

It's not physics - you see, our IQ's are too low, otherwise we'd know about the amazing hovering aircraft!

* Give robbo a helicopter * :salute:

[Takeda Shingen]

Let's all play nice.

The Management

[robbo180265]

* Give robbo a helicopter * :salute:


Or a Harrier :O:

[Krauter]

ROFLMAO Oh god.. seriously Speed is not a law in aerodynamics?

Where is your evidence to back this up? I'd post links but I know that you won't read them as apparently they're above your IQ level also.

Please provide fact in written sources before you spew more of your BS

[DelphiUniverse]

ROFLMAO Oh god.. seriously Speed is not a law in aerodynamics?

Where is your evidence to back this up? I'd post links but I know that you won't read them as apparently they're above your IQ level also.

Please provide fact in written sources before you spew more of your BS

The evidence is clearly seen in helicopters and like robbo said, Harriers.

You claimed that speed was essential, I claimed it wasnt. I am right and you are wrong, why do you keep bothering me with this? Why are you such a bad loser in this case, cant you find a different thread to post in?

You LOST this case. And that is the end of it, do you hear me? * Knock knock *

[Krauter]

For one, the Harrier is a specialized vertical Takeoff Aircraft.

Helicopters are a special branch of aircraft. If you're talking about helicopters then say "speed is not essential to helicopter flight"

/facepalm

[DelphiUniverse]

For one, the Harrier is a specialized vertical Takeoff Aircraft.

Helicopters are a special branch of aircraft. If you're talking about helicopters then say "speed is not essential to helicopter flight"

/facepalm

Both the harrier and a helicopter fly under the same principles as a boeing 747 when flying straight and level and when they have gotten the speed neccesary to maintain level flight with the use of speed. If a helicopter would slow down with the same power applied it would fall down, just like an aircraft would.

There are two stages of flight with harrier and helicopter, the first is vertical and the second is horizontal flight. So my point is that both of these aircraft is not DEPENDENT on increasing speed to be able to fly. But when they DO increase speed, they fly just like any other aircraft.

If you are capable of moving on now, to a different thread, I would appreciate it.

[Krauter]

If you would provide fact to back up your stories I'd appreciate it even more. This is a free forum, I can post where I would like to.

[Trevally.]

Sorry to go off topic but with this,

I jumped into the bath this morning and water spilled out over the floor.

Eureka!

[KarlKoch]

Both the harrier and a helicopter fly under the same principles as a boeing 747 when flying straight and level and when they have gotten the speed neccesary to maintain level flight with the use of speed. If a helicopter would slow down with the same power applied it would fall down, just like an aircraft would.


Sorry to break your world, but this is pure bull****. You cannot compare helicopters to airplanes. In no way. Except they both fly.
To explain: if a helicopter is in straight and level flight and drops speed, it actually will start to climb. Now, why that? Because helicopters do not have a fixed rotor. In fact, each rotorblade can be moved differently in a way that while its moving from back to the front, it is required to produce lift. While going back from the front to the back, it should prudoce as less drag as possible. For that being possible, the angle of incidence is being changed. The same happens, when you move the stick. Each rotor blade is being set accordingly. Now, when you move the throttle stick, the exact same happens, but to all blades at the same time. So actually, your "throttle"-stick is not a throttle stick. Modern helicopters are all working that way. Why? Because you have a giant gyroscope mounted on top of the helicopter (the rotor). Do you know, what happens to a gyroscope if you try to change its orientation in threedimensional space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope)?

So in fact, when you reduce forward motion in a helicopter, it will start to climb, because the power setting is always equal. Its just a matter of conservation of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy). Prior to changing anything, in straight and level flight, potential energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy) and kinetic energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy) are in balance (otherwise, you wouldn't fly straight and level, right?). Now, if you reduce the kinetic energy, the reaction will be a raise in potential energy (= climb).

The same goes for any other airplane, of course. Limitation: do not touch the power setting (= conservation of energy).
If you do touch the power setting, the assumption of straight and level flight is no longer applicable. The equations of movement become way more complex (too complex to discuss them here). They include nonlinear transitions as well as stimulation of the phugoid oscillation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phugoid).

However, your statement, and i quote: If a helicopter would slow down with the same power applied it would fall down, just like an aircraft would. is as wrong as it gets. Keyword is same power applied. Just a matter of 6th class physics.


There are two stages of flight with harrier and helicopter, the first is vertical and the second is horizontal flight. So my point is that both of these aircraft is not DEPENDENT on increasing speed to be able to fly. But when they DO increase speed, they fly just like any other aircraft.

Again wrong. You always need speed to fly. Its just a matter of which speed. In case of a helicopter, its the speed of the blades against the air. In case of a harrier (when hovering, starting or landing), its the speed of its combustion residues (btw, thats why a first-generation harrier could never start vertically when on MTOW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Takeoff_Weight) and needed those funny looking british carriers with the ski-jump).
For planes flying straight and level, its always the speed of the air moving over the lift-producing parts.

For the discussion to go on (on a more mature level, i hope):

There is a difference in pressure, as the water pressure is lower at the top of the boat at the bottom due to depth difference. The big factor however is that the external pressure is increasing while the pressure in the people compartment hopefully remains the same. This actually squeezes the sub reducing displacement. It also gets colder as you go down counteracting the reduced displacement somewhat.

A submarine will always be adjusting ballast to adjust for these factors and maintain a near neutral buoyancy. Depending on operations you will run a little heavy or light and counteract it with ship controls as required.

Now to that, the planes on a sub are used to change the up or down angle to use the forward motion to maintain or change depth. There is no "lifting action as water unlike air doesn't compress and creates no pressure differential. Water pressure is determined by depth and is constant.

Rip

This man is right. So in a sub, you will never be able to maintain constant depth without working on buoyancy. As soon as you only 1 gram above or below what you should have, the sub will start to climb or descent. It will then (due to the pressure outside) alter its volume. But because the mass is (first approximation) constant, the "relative density" is changed. It gets higher when descending and lower when climbing, therefore accelerates the effect the 1 gram difference had. So you always need (at least a little) speed to maintain any depth.

Thanks for reading. :)

[DelphiUniverse]

If you would provide fact to back up your stories I'd appreciate it even more. This is a free forum, I can post where I would like to.

Fact has been given, how many times do I need to give you the facts. I told you, to back off now. You are not a cat with 9 lives. You're already dead in this thread. Do yourself a favor and get lost.

[DelphiUniverse]

Sorry to break your world, but this is pure bull****. You cannot compare helicopters to airplanes. In no way. Except they both fly.
To explain: if a helicopter is in straight and level flight and drops speed, it actually will start to climb. Now, why that? Because helicopters do not have a fixed rotor. In fact, each rotorblade can be moved differently in a way that while its moving from back to the front, it is required to produce lift. While going back from the front to the back, it should prudoce as less drag as possible. For that being possible, the angle of incidence is being changed. The same happens, when you move the stick. Each rotor blade is being set accordingly. Now, when you move the throttle stick, the exact same happens, but to all blades at the same time. So actually, your "throttle"-stick is not a throttle stick. Modern helicopters are all working that way. Why? Because you have a giant gyroscope mounted on top of the helicopter (the rotor). Do you know, what happens to a gyroscope if you try to change its orientation in threedimensional space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope)?

So in fact, when you reduce forward motion in a helicopter, it will start to climb, because the power setting is always equal. Its just a matter of conservation of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy). Prior to changing anything, in straight and level flight, potential energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy) and kinetic energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy) are in balance (otherwise, you wouldn't fly straight and level, right?). Now, if you reduce the kinetic energy, the reaction will be a raise in potential energy (= climb).

The same goes for any other airplane, of course. Limitation: do not touch the power setting (= conservation of energy).
If you do touch the power setting, the assumption of straight and level flight is no longer applicable. The equations of movement become way more complex (too complex to discuss them here). They include nonlinear transitions as well as stimulation of the phugoid oscillation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phugoid).

However, your statement, and i quote: is as wrong as it gets. Keyword is same power applied. Just a matter of 6th class physics.


Again wrong. You always need speed to fly. Its just a matter of which speed. In case of a helicopter, its the speed of the blades against the air. In case of a harrier (when hovering, starting or landing), its the speed of its combustion residues (btw, thats why a first-generation harrier could never start vertically when on MTOW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Takeoff_Weight) and needed those funny looking british carriers with the ski-jump).
For planes flying straight and level, its always the speed of the air moving over the lift-producing parts.

For the discussion to go on (on a more mature level, i hope):


This man is right. So in a sub, you will never be able to maintain constant depth without working on buoyancy. As soon as you only 1 gram above or below what you should have, the sub will start to climb or descent. It will then (due to the pressure outside) alter its volume. But because the mass is (first approximation) constant, the "relative density" is changed. It gets higher when descending and lower when climbing, therefore accelerates the effect the 1 gram difference had. So you always need (at least a little) speed to maintain any depth.

Thanks for reading. :)

We could argue hours and hours over the airodynamics of helicopters.

I think that you should have gotten the point. Helicopters are flying machines as well as traditional airplanes.

And ofcourse the air needs speed, but Krauter was talking about the speed of the craft, not the relative speed of the wind as you can see when he speaks about helicopters, so it is completely irrelevant.

Besides it is not the speed of the wind that makes the airplane or helicopter fly, it is the difference in pressure. You could have all the speed you would like, but if the air is not very dense, speed is irrelevant, it is ultimately a matter of pressure.

Now get lost you too.

[KarlKoch]

We could argue hours and hours over the airodynamics of helicopters.

I think that you should have gotten the point. Helicopters are flying machines as well as traditional airplanes.

No, we could not. Nothing you said in your post changes anything of what i have said. You, sir, are wrong with what you have said about descending aircrafts when dropping speed. You are at best just ignorant.
And to compare helicopters to traditional airplanes, saying both are flying machines is about equal to saying human can live on mars and earth, because both are planets. Its so weird i can't even stop laughing.

However, you said, and i quote:
Besides it is not the speed of the wind that makes the airplane or helicopter fly, it is the difference in pressure. You could have all the speed you would like, but if the air is not very dense, speed is irrelevant, it is ultimately a matter of pressure.. You are right with this statement. In a way. Since we live in a real world, we have to rely on what we can observe. Now, since we don't have a difference in pressure high enough to produce any noticable lift (as long as we have no moving air or plane), the statement that pressure difference is the key for lift is wrong. It actually is the speed, combined with a properly shaped wing profile, that is producing a pressure difference. Not vice versa. In a theroetical world, your statement would be equal to mine, because we cannot differ between actio and reactio. At least not mathematically, as it would be required to be sure if our assumption is true. You might think about that.


And ofcourse the air needs speed, but Krauter was talking about the speed of the craft, not the relative speed of the wind as you can see when he speaks about helicopters, so it is completely irrelevant.


I am sorry, but i don't see any post from Krauter saying what you are referring to. I can only find this post:
For one, the Harrier is a specialized vertical Takeoff Aircraft.

Helicopters are a special branch of aircraft. If you're talking about helicopters then say "speed is not essential to helicopter flight"

/facepalm
And what should i say? He is correct. You were talking about planes. Planes unequals helicopters. Now, you said speed is not needed for a plane to fly. I quote again:
And secondly, airplanes do not have to go faster to keep flying, I explained this to another guy in a later post, which you didnt read. Speed has little to do with airodynamics, it just happen to be a great tool.
Later on, you throw a helicopter in the discussion. Your argument seemed to be, that helicopters can hover, and thats why planes don't need speed to fly. This is again so dumb, i need to hurt me to stop laughing. I repeat: traditional airplanes are in no way comparable to helicopters in terms of how they fly. You will never ever get an airplane to hover without (strong) winds.

And, just by the way. Saying someone else trying to help you understand something to "get lost", is just a sign of ignorance. However, you might still believe pressure difference is the key to flying. If that would be true, how do space rockets fly? Is it the difference of the pressure in the fuel tanks versus the surrounding air pressure?

[DelphiUniverse]

No, we could not. Nothing you said in your post changes anything of what i have said. You, sir, are wrong with what you have said about descending aircrafts when dropping speed. You are at best just ignorant.
And to compare helicopters to traditional airplanes, saying both are flying machines is about equal to saying human can live on mars and earth, because both are planets. Its so weird i can't even stop laughing.

However, you said, and i quote: . You are right with this statement. In a way. Since we live in a real world, we have to rely on what we can observe. Now, since we don't have a difference in pressure high enough to produce any noticable lift (as long as we have no moving air or plane), the statement that pressure difference is the key for lift is wrong. It actually is the speed, combined with a properly shaped wing profile, that is producing a pressure difference. Not vice versa. In a theroetical world, your statement would be equal to mine, because we cannot differ between actio and reactio. At least not mathematically, as it would be required to be sure if our assumption is true. You might think about that.



I am sorry, but i don't see any post from Krauter saying what you are referring to. I can only find this post:

And what should i say? He is correct. You were talking about planes. Planes unequals helicopters. Now, you said speed is not needed for a plane to fly. I quote again:
Later on, you throw a helicopter in the discussion. Your argument seemed to be, that helicopters can hover, and thats why planes don't need speed to fly. This is again so dumb, i need to hurt me to stop laughing. I repeat: traditional airplanes are in no way comparable to helicopters in terms of how they fly. You will never ever get an airplane to hover without (strong) winds.

And, just by the way. Saying someone else trying to help you understand something to "get lost", is just a sign of ignorance. However, you might still believe pressure difference is the key to flying. If that would be true, how do space rockets fly? Is it the difference of the pressure in the fuel tanks versus the surrounding air pressure?

He were indirectly addressing helicopters as part of the problem, which is a strong indication. And helicopters are subject to airodynamics too.

And besides you dont need to use a helicopter, you could use a harrier or you could use a cessna or you could use a piper cub. It doesnt MATTER.

How many times do I need to tell you this. Enough of this. Don't try to outsmart me boy or i'll send you down to a pit you will never return from.
You're not at my level, i've been trying to tell you and krauter this for some time now. And that is downwards ofcourse. You wont take a hint.

AND THIS: "And to compare helicopters to traditional airplanes, saying both are flying machines is about equal to saying human can live on mars and earth, because both are planets. Its so weird i can't even stop laughing." <- I don't even want to bother answering that. It is so far beyond the point, it is logical and correct from my point of view. You have nothing to say against that. Now really, GET LOST!

[raymond6751]

Same problem here, what a pain. :D

Do you know how to get just the fix without having to install the full mod ?

Thanks !

Now that you know it is a bug, but don't want the mod, just use the in-game depth setter. Press CTRL to switch to the specific dials and click the depth you want on the vertical scale, extreme left at bottom of screen.

It is called manual control.

[KarlKoch]

He were indirectly addressing helicopters as part of the problem, which is a strong indication. And helicopters are subject to airodynamics too.

And besides you dont need to use a helicopter, you could use a harrier or you could use a cessna or you could use a piper cub. It doesnt MATTER.

How many times do I need to tell you this. Enough of this. Don't try to outsmart me boy or i'll send you down to a pit you will never return from.
Sure, helicopters are subject to airodynamics. As are a harrier, cessna or piper cub. However, cessna, piper cub (and all other traditional fixed-wing-planes) do need speed to fly. A helicopter does not need speed (of the aircraft) to hover. Thats why you cannot compare them the way you want to. Harriers (when hovering) are none of both. They are, in fact, not even flying.
So, you see, it actually does matter. Just because the basic principles behind those effects are the same, they are not producing these effects the same way. Thats why you can't compare them.

And, i would LOVE to see the dark pit i will never return from. The only thing i ever saw from you in this thread was ignorant behaviour. You didn't even try to provide proof for your claims.

Edit:

AND THIS: "And to compare helicopters to traditional airplanes, saying both are flying machines is about equal to saying human can live on mars and earth, because both are planets. Its so weird i can't even stop laughing." <- I don't even want to bother answering that. It is so far beyond the point, it is logical and correct from my point of view. You have nothing to say against that. Now really, GET LOST!
Someone once said "Der Horizont vieler Menschen ist ein Kreis mit radius Null. Das nennen sie dann ihren Standpunkt". Translated to something like: "The horizon of many people is a circle with radius zero. They call that their viewpoint." I think it was Albert Einstein.

[DelphiUniverse]

Sure, helicopters are subject to airodynamics. As are a harrier, cessna or piper cub. However, cessna, piper cub (and all other traditional fixed-wing-planes) do need speed to fly. A helicopter does not need speed (of the aircraft) to hover. Thats why you cannot compare them the way you want to. Harriers (when hovering) are none of both. They are, in fact, not even flying.
So, you see, it actually does matter. Just because the basic principles behind those effects are the same, they are not producing these effects the same way. Thats why you can't compare them.

And, i would LOVE to see the dark pit i will never return from. The only thing i ever saw from you in this thread was ignorant behaviour. You didn't even try to provide proof for your claims.

I surely provided proof that they didnt need to INCREASE speed like krauter said.

And I also provided evidence that helicopters and harriers didnt need speed to fly.

And secondly, he suggested speed was a LAW, which it isnt, there is nothing to prove with that, there is no proof that speed is a law. You cant prove a negative.

Now understand me correctly, if speed is a law, you would see it take effect ALWAYS. And thats where it doesnt take effect, It is entirely possible to fly without the aircraft having speed. It is possible, piper cubs have done this, jet fighter like harriers can do this, helicopters can do this, sailplanes can do this.

If it WAS a law, it would be seen all over the spectrum, which we cant see all over the spectrum.

Everything you said below is wrong, i'm tired of this discussion now so I wont be quoting today.

[KarlKoch]

Here we go:

I surely provided proof that they didnt need to INCREASE speed like krauter said.

And I also provided evidence that helicopters and harriers didnt need speed to fly.

WHERE? I don't see any proof. Only your statements.


And secondly, he suggested speed was a LAW, which it isnt, there is nothing to prove with that, there is no proof that speed is a law. You cant prove a negative.

You are right here. Speed is not a law. But the law for lift contains the variable speed. Squared.

Now understand me correctly, if speed is a law, you would see it take effect ALWAYS. And thats where it doesnt take effect, It is entirely possible to fly without the aircraft having speed. It is possible, piper cubs have done this, jet fighter like harriers can do this, helicopters can do this, sailplanes can do this.

Now, you are getting wrong again. No aircraft whatsoever can fly without speed. I assume you are talking about a plane being stationary above the ground. This is possible and true, but not without speed. You need the wind being as fast as the plane would be without wind. And, since you mess up with reference frames, this error is understandable. You need to understand that the following statements are equal:
1) The plane moves through the air at a certain speed
2) The air moves along the plane at a certain speed
You cannot decide which one is true, as long as you are within the reference frame. You NEED an external observation to say which one is right.


If it WAS a law, it would be seen all over the spectrum, which we cant see all over the spectrum.

Everything you said below is wrong, i'm tired of this discussion now so I wont be quoting today.
Tired of being wrong? That would be good, since you could learn something.

[DelphiUniverse]

Here we go:

WHERE? I don't see any proof. Only your statements.

Aircraft are not dependent on speed to fly, thats what I said. relative speed of air molecules cannot be used in this example.

Reason 1: Because krauter was talking about speed in the manner we percieve speed of airplanes as you can deduce of his speech from helicopters.
Reason 2: Air density change everything.


You are right here. Speed is not a law. But the law for lift contains the variable speed. Squared.
And hence what I told Krauter. Speed is not a law, get this straight. If it was a law it would take effect all the time. It is not a law.


Now, you are getting wrong again. No aircraft whatsoever can fly without speed.

Now you are twisting the subject, my argument all the way was that you do not have to RELY on speed for aircrafts to fly. Get this straight too.


2) The air moves along the plane at a certain speed

And hence, the variable speed of the air INDICATES that this isnt a law. IF air molecules attack the wing at a higher speed due to a storm, you would have to reduce speed of the aircraft to maintain healthy speed and avvoid overspeeding it. Thats why we have indicated and true airspeed.


You cannot decide which one is true, as long as you are within the reference frame. You NEED an external observation to say which one is right.

No you dont need external observations, the airplane have vor navigation systems and gps to measure ground speed. You use ground speed, subtract indicated airspeed and get true airspeed, then you'll know the speed of the wind.


Tired of being wrong? That would be good, since you could learn something.

Get real, now don't post any more to me now. I have flown real airplanes, my nephew is a pilot, i've spent 15 years in simulators and i fly RC planes daily and i've read rod machado's flight book.

[Sailor Steve]

Don't try to outsmart me boy or i'll send you down to a pit you will never return from.
You're not at my level, i've been trying to tell you and krauter this for some time now. And that is downwards ofcourse. You wont take a hint.
The worst possible type of failure in a debate is insisting that you are smarter than the other person. It shows you have nothing to say.

GET LOST!
Unless you started the thread it is not your place to demand someone else leave.

First of all, as you say, pressure differential is the primary ingredient for any heavier-than-air craft to fly. What you are missing is that this pressure differential is generated by the forward motion of the aerodynamic device through the air. The wing of an airplane, the rotor blades of a helicopter and the blades of a jet turbine are all identical in this, and the lift is indeed totally dependent on the speed of said aerodynamic device through the air.

The helicopter itself may hover, but the lift is generated by the rapid movement of the rotor blades through the air. The Harrier may hover as well, but the lift is generated by the speed of the turbines in the jet engine. Increase that speed and the hovering craft rises, reduce it and it falls. So rather than being unimportant, as you insist, in the examples you give speed is actually everything. Without it the aircraft cannot fly.

The submarine, on the other hand, is better compared to the Zeppelin or blimp. As with lighter-than-air craft, the submarine's capacity to hover is dependant upon it's being overall lighter than the medium it displaces. This has nothing to do with forward motion, though in most cases perfect bouyancy is impossible to achieve or maintain, so the airship, or submarine, does require a minimum forward motion to maintain a precise altitude or depth. A submarine can rise by lightening its load, i.e. reducing ballast. An aircraft - traditional, helicopter or Harrier - can not. No matter how light you make it, it will not rise without speed.

This particular argument started when melin71 complained that in order to maintain depth he had to retain, not a little forward motion, but full speed, which is not something true of real submarines.

You made this statement:
This isn't a bug. The deeper you get, the higher pressure you reach. The u-boat is like an airplane in the air. Your dive scope keeps the u-boat level. If speed drops you will sink, naturally.

It's the same principle with airplanes. The higher you get in the air the less dense the air will be and the greater speed will be needed to maintain straight and level flight.

It's not a bug. It's a shame they "fixed" something that should not be fixed.
You were wrong then, and you have continued to be wrong ever since. Accusing people of having lower IQs than you won't change this, nor will telling them they have already lost and should go away.

[DelphiUniverse]

The worst possible type of failure in a debate is insisting that you are smarter than the other person. It shows you have nothing to say.


Unless you started the thread it is not your place to demand someone else leave.

First of all, as you say, pressure differential is the primary ingredient for any heavier-than-air craft to fly. What you are missing is that this pressure differential is generated by the forward motion of the aerodynamic device through the air. The wing of an airplane, the rotor blades of a helicopter and the blades of a jet turbine are all identical in this, and the lift is indeed totally dependent on the speed of said aerodynamic device through the air.

The helicopter itself may hover, but the lift is generated by the rapid movement of the rotor blades through the air. The Harrier may hover as well, but the lift is generated by the speed of the turbines in the jet engine. Increase that speed and the hovering craft rises, reduce it and it falls. So rather than being unimportant, as you insist, in the examples you give speed is actually everything. Without it the aircraft cannot fly.

The submarine, on the other hand, is better compared to the Zeppelin or blimp. As with lighter-than-air craft, the submarine's capacity to hover is dependant upon it's being overall lighter than the medium it displaces. This has nothing to do with forward motion, though in most cases perfect bouyancy is impossible to achieve or maintain, so the airship, or submarine, does require a minimum forward motion to maintain a precise altitude or depth. A submarine can rise by lightening its load, i.e. reducing ballast. An aircraft - traditional, helicopter or Harrier - can not. No matter how light you make it, it will not rise without speed.

This particular argument started when melin71 complained that in order to maintain depth he had to retain, not a little forward motion, but full speed, which is not something true of real submarines.

You made this statement:

You were wrong then, and you have continued to be wrong ever since. Accusing people of having lower IQs than you won't change this, nor will telling them they have already lost and should go away.

1: I never claimed I had higher IQ's (Lie)
2: I didnt tell him to go away for no reason
3: I was not wrong about comparison between low vs high pressure
4: Krauter said "TO INCREASE" speed. And I said flight is not dependant on increasing speed. Airodynamics is not dependant on speed to work (We were talking of ground speed of the airplane if you missed it. So you're wrong here.
5: Yes when the aircraft is moving it is using speed as a tool to gain lift from the air molecules that attack at a faster pace. I said that too if you had read my posts. But again, aircrafts is not dependent on speed, that is ground speed, not air speed you silly goose.

Sorry for the choice of words im using with you, but what CAN I possibly do when im dealing with idiots. I HAVE to say something when the idiots wont stop when my point is proven over and over.

There is an old quote, when arguing with idiots, make sure your arguments are short and concise. There is truth in that.

[KarlKoch]

Aircraft are not dependent on speed to fly, thats what I said. relative speed of air molecules cannot be used in this example.

Reason 1: Because krauter was talking about speed in the manner we percieve speed of airplanes as you can deduce of his speech from helicopters.
Reason 2: Air density change everything.

What does the air density change? It changes only the amount of lift produced, nothing else.

And hence what I told Krauter. Speed is not a law, get this straight. If it was a law it would take effect all the time. It is not a law.

I agreed on that one. Before. Do you actually read, what i am posting?


Now you are twisting the subject, my argument all the way was that you do not have to RELY on speed for aircrafts to fly. Get this straight too.

I am not twisting anything, you just don't get it. You HAVE to rely on speed. There is just no other way. Show me any plane flying aerodynamically without speed. ANY. Emphasis lies on aerodynamically!


And hence, the variable speed of the air INDICATES that this isnt a law. IF air molecules attack the wing at a lower speed due to a storm, you would have to reduce speed of the aircraft to maintain healthy speed and avvoid overspeeding it. Thats why we have indicated and true airspeed.

What? I already said you, you are mixing your reference frames. But i will tell you in a second.

No you dont need external observations, the airplane have vor navigation systems and gps to measure ground speed. You use ground speed, subtract indicated airspeed and get true airspeed, then you'll know the speed of the wind.

VOR navigation actually IS an external observation. Just like GPS is. Or does every airplane carry its own VOR-ground station of GPS-satellite? No, they are located on the ground, OUTSIDE the airplane, and therefore are NOT in the same reference frame. They are external observations.

For your statements of IAS and TAS, i will quote Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_airspeed)
The Airspeed Indicator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_Indicator) (ASI), driven by the Pitot tube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot_tube), shows what is called Indicated airspeed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicated_airspeed) (IAS). The ASI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_Indicator) is calibrated so that IAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicated_airspeed) corresponds to TAS @ sea level, 15 degrees Celsius and 1013.2 HPa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPa) (29.92 InHg) of air pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pressure) - called International Standard Atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere) or ISA conditions. When the air around the aircraft differs from said ISA conditions, IAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicated_airspeed) will no longer correspond to TAS, thus it will no longer reflect aircraft performance. In fact, the ASI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_Indicator) will indicate less and less as the air density decreases with altitude and temperature increases.
For this reason, TAS cannot be measured directly. In flight, it can be calculated either by using an E6B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E6B) flight calculator or its equivalent function on many GPSs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_positioning_system). The data required are Outside air temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outside_air_temperature) (OAT), Pressure altitude and CAS (IAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicated_airspeed) corrected for installation and instrument errors). Modern aircraft instrumentation use an Air Data Computer to perform this calculation in real time and display the TAS reading directly on the EFIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFIS).
Since temperature variations are of a smaller influence, the ASI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_Indicator) error can be roughly estimated as indicating about 2% less than TAS per 1,000ft of altitude above sea level. Thus for a given IAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicated_airspeed), the True Airspeed is about 2% higher than IAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicated_airspeed) per 1,000ft of altitude above sea level. An aircraft flying at 15,000ft with an IAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicated_airspeed) of 100kt, is actually flying at 130kt TAS, or 130kt through the air.Since you don't even bother reading this, let me say the following below.



Get real, now don't post any more to me now. I have flown real airplanes, my nephew is a pilot, i've spent 15 years in simulators and i fly RC planes daily and i've read rod machado's flight book.
Okay, so your nephew should have some books on aerodynamics. You might ask him nicely and he will hand them to you, so you can read them. In fact, your nephew should have WAY more knowledge of what is going on than you have. Instead of spending 15 years in simulators, you should have read a book once in a while. I can give you some starting literature on the subject:
-Fundamentals of Aerodynamics by John Anderson (http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Aerodynamics-John-D-Anderson/dp/0072373350)
-Flight theory and Aerodynamics by Charles Dole (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Flight-Theory-and-Aerodynamics/Charles-E-Dole/e/9780471370062)
- heck, go to the next university and ask for the teaching book there

Don't you see you are making a fool of yourself here? You try to argue with someone far younger than you seem to be (i am 28, for what its worth), yet being far above your horizon on this subject. Get over it. You are not the smartest person in the world. I am not, too, but, contrary to you, i am fully aware of that.

I hope you are a troll and trolled me perfectly. Otherwise, i just lost my faith in humanity.

[KarlKoch]

1: I never claimed I had higher IQ's (Lie)

Proof:

You need to get a higher IQ to understand this, I understand that you do NOT understand it, but thats ok. There is hope for you!:DL

2: I didnt tell him to go away for no reason

Proof:
Fact has been given, how many times do I need to give you the facts. I told you, to back off now. You are not a cat with 9 lives. You're already dead in this thread. Do yourself a favor and get lost.

3: I was not wrong about comparison between low vs high pressure

Right, but in the reasons for that.

4: Krauter said "TO INCREASE" speed. And I said flight is not dependant on increasing speed. Airodynamics is not dependant on speed to work (We were talking of ground speed of the airplane if you missed it. So you're wrong here.

What? WTF has ground speed to do with a flying airplane? Tell it to me, i am really curious. And equation for that?


5: Yes when the aircraft is moving it is using speed as a tool to gain lift from the air molecules that attack at a faster pace. I said that too if you had read my posts. But again, aircrafts is not dependent on speed, that is ground speed, not air speed you silly goose.

Please, please please read the literature i suggested to you in my last post.

Sorry for the choice of words im using with you, but what CAN I possibly do when im dealing with idiots. I HAVE to say something when the idiots wont stop when my point is proven over and over.

There is an old quote, when arguing with idiots, make sure your arguments are short and concise. There is truth in that.
There is no idiot arguing with you. Sincerly. Everyone in this thread is saying that you are wrong. Everyone but you. Its the same as driving on a speedway in the wrong direction and saying "Where the hell to all these wrong-way-drivers come from?".

[DelphiUniverse]

What does the air density change? It changes only the amount of lift produced, nothing else.
Air density change the effect on the airplane based on the speed of wind. It's very easy to understand.


I am not twisting anything, you just don't get it. You HAVE to rely on speed. There is just no other way. Show me any plane flying aerodynamically without speed. ANY. Emphasis lies on aerodynamically!

Well ofcourse you have to rely on speed if you consider airodynamics in average. But get this straight (AGAIN), flying is not dependant on speed. This is probably the tenth time I'm saying this.


VOR navigation actually IS an external observation. Just like GPS is. Or does

Vor stations is not external observation, it is a broadcasting station. GPS is not an external observator either.


For your statements of IAS and TAS, i will quote Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_airspeed)Since you don't even bother reading this, let me say the following below.

I have already read more credible data than wikipedia.

Now for the "hundreth time" get off this thread.

[Sailor Steve]

1: I never claimed I had higher IQ's (Lie)
You said his IQ was too low for him to understand, implying that yours was high enough to do so, thereby implying that yours was higher. Now at the bottom of this post you call him (or is it me) an idiot. (Not a lie)

2: I didnt tell him to go away for no reason
I didn't say it was for no reason. You did try to resolve your argument on more than one occasion by telling your opponent to go away. That is bad debating at the least, and offensive at worst.

3: I was not wrong about comparison between low vs high pressure
But you were wrong to insist that speed is not important.

4: Krauter said "TO INCREASE" speed. And I said flight is not dependant on increasing speed. Airodynamics is not dependant on speed to work (We were talking of ground speed of the airplane if you missed it. So you're wrong here.
Actually an increase in speed is required for the aircraft to climb. Aerodynamicists call it "specific excess energy". This means that a specific amount of power is required to maintain altitude at a given speed. If and increase in altitude is attempted the plane will lose speed, as climbing also requires energy. To offset this power must be increased. The groundspeed is irrelevant, since it's the motion though the air that generates lift.

you silly goose.
Rude name-calling is not only bad debate, but is highly offensive.

Sorry for the choice of words im using with you, but what CAN I possibly do when im dealing with idiots. I HAVE to say something when the idiots wont stop when my point is proven over and over.
You have proven nothing. Your original point - that the problem described is not a bug - was wrong.

Your second point - comparing a submarine underwater to the flight of an aircraft - was also wrong. The two have nothing in common at all.

Oh and while we're on the subject, you at one point attempted to show that someone else didn't know what he was talking about by pointing out that (It's a german u-boat, not a submarine btw)
Unterseeboot is German for "under water boat". Submarine is English for "under water". The two words mean exactly the same thing.

There is an old quote, when arguing with idiots, make sure your arguments are short and concise. There is truth in that.
Again you attempt to dismiss your opponents by impugning their intelligence. This does not reflect well on your own, especially considering that one of them is a pilot, which suggests some knowledge of aerodynamics, and at least one is a current or former submariner, which implies at least a little understanding of what he's talking about.

You claim superior knowledge, yet you cite no references, and ignore references cited by the people you call "idiots". What are your credentials, exactly?

[DelphiUniverse]

You said his IQ was too low for him to understand, implying that yours was high enough to do so, thereby implying that yours was higher. Now at the bottom of this post you call him (or is it me) an idiot. (Not a lie)

Implying? :DL

[Sailor Steve]

Well ofcourse you have to rely on speed if you consider airodynamics in average. But get this straight (AGAIN), flying is not dependant on speed. This is probably the tenth time I'm saying this.
I showed that this is not true. You haven't replied to my explanation of the movement required to generate lift.

I have already read more credible data than wikipedia.
Then please quote thos sources, and show us where we can read them. In this particular case the Wiki article is a very good description of the subject. If you can actually show otherwise, please do so.

Now for the "hundreth time" get off this thread.
I thought you didn't tell people to go away.

[DelphiUniverse]

I showed that this is not true. You haven't replied to my explanation of the movement required to generate lift.

Ok, now its hammer time. W_E W_E_R_E T_A_L_K_I_N_G O_F G_R_O_U_N_D S_P_E_E_D (A_S P_E_R_C_I_E_V_E_D I_N G_E_N_E_R_A_L)
Capacity needed to grasp sentence. Next question.


Then please quote thos sources, and show us where we can read them. In this particular case the Wiki article is a very good description of the subject. If you can actually show otherwise, please do so.

Look at quote above. Dont talk to me about generating lift, this is ancient knowledge from my side, and has nothing to do with the discussion. Look at the quote above.

Btw, you never answered my previous post about "implying"

[KarlKoch]

Air density change the effect on the airplane based on the speed of wind. It's very easy to understand.

Which effect? Show me the equations that your statemant relys on. Please.

Well ofcourse you have to rely on speed if you consider airodynamics in average. But get this straight (AGAIN), flying is not dependant on speed. This is probably the tenth time I'm saying this.

There is a difference in aerodynamics in average and in special? What is the average aerodynamics?


Vor stations is not external observation, it is a broadcasting station. GPS is not an external observator either.

What effect has the method of signal propagation to do with external or internal? Does it make a difference if the information is propagted via electromagnetic signals, sound waves or anything else? Don't ever use a technical term when you don't understand its meaning.


I have already read more credible data than wikipedia.

True, but i have nothing electronic at hand now. And for your level of understanding Wikipedia is far enough.

Now for the "hundreth time" get off this thread.
May i ask you for permission to print and publish your posts on this particular post? I need them for my colleagues to laugh.


edit:
Ok, now its hammer time. W_E W_E_R_E T_A_L_K_I_N_G O_F G_R_O_U_N_D S_P_E_E_D (A_S P_E_R_C_I_E_V_E_D I_N G_E_N_E_R_A_L)
Capacity needed to grasp sentence. Next question.


Look at quote above. Dont talk to me about generating lift, this is ancient knowledge from my side, and has nothing to do with the discussion. Look at the quote above.

Btw, you never answered my previous post about "implying"

What in gods name has the ground speed to do with a flying aircraft? When you could name one thing completely irrelevant for aerodynamics, you found it!

And your posts are no proof. Your posts are statements. Statements can be true or false. Name a source for your statements, so they can be checked.

And please. Just write down the equation for lift.

[Sailor Steve]

Implying? :DL
I speak strictly according to fact. Though you did not directly claim superiority, statine that he lacks the intelligence to understand certainly does equate to claiming that you do, which is the same as saying it without actually having to say it.

And you have now stooped to calling people "idiots". There is no implication there, but direct insult. This is bad debating, proves nothing, and is not part of any real argument.

[Lord Justice]

The worst possible type of failure in a debate is insisting that you are smarter than the other person. It shows you have nothing to say.


Unless you started the thread it is not your place to demand someone else leave.

Point 1 = nonsense, its ones opinion, it shows what one feels when dealing with a certain member, regardless of whom is right or wrong. Point 2 = Agreed. Point 3 = Regard to last para, is your opinion so right? worthy to tell him he is wrong and continued to be wrong!! In your eyes yes, in anothers does it hold so much to be desired?

1: I never claimed I had higher IQ's (Lie)


Sorry for the choice of words im using with you,Point 4 = agreed regard to IQ, pepole twist words all the time to support there meaning or objection, thus indirectly attempting to make original said comments worse, to beg favour of the situation. Point 5 = Dont be sorry Sir, for your own choice of words, as long as they adhere to the forum rules, one has relative freedom. P.S If i may, this thread should have been titled Maintain Discipline, my opinion only. A most worthy read though. Good day.

[DelphiUniverse]

May i ask you for permission to print and publish your posts on this particular post? I need them for my colleagues to laugh.

You can start with printing this for your collegues:

Originally Posted by KarlKoch:
VOR navigation actually IS an external observation. Just like GPS is. Or does

DelphiUniverse:
Vor stations is not external observation, it is a broadcasting station. GPS is not an external observator either.

:haha:

[DelphiUniverse]

Point 1 = nonsense, its ones opinion, it shows what one feels when dealing with a certain member, regardless of whom is right or wrong. Point 2 = Agreed. Point 3 = Regard to last para, is your opinion so right? worthy to tell him he is wrong and continued to be wrong!! In your eyes yes, in anothers does it hold so much to be desired?

Point 4 = agreed regard to IQ, pepole twist words all the time to support there meaning or objection, thus indirectly attempting to make original said comments worse, to beg favour of the situation. Point 5 = Dont be sorry Sir, for your own choice of words, as long as they adhere to the forum rules, one has relative freedom. P.S If i may, this thread should have been titled Maintain Discipline, my opinion only. A most worthy read though. Good day.

A wise man in this forum, I didnt know they existed :)

[Sailor Steve]

Ok, now its hammer time. W_E W_E_R_E T_A_L_K_I_N_G O_F G_R_O_U_N_D S_P_E_E_D (A_S P_E_R_C_I_E_V_E_D I_N G_E_N_E_R_A_L)
No, we were talking about submarines. You attempted to compare them with the flight of aircraft, and you were wrong.

Capacity needed to grasp sentence. Next question.
And once again you attempt to "prove" a point by demeaning the intelligence of the person you are talking to. What you spelled out is no answer at all.


Look at quote above.
Which one? If you cited any sources, I apologize for missing it. Please point out where you quoted sources.

Dont talk to me about generating lift, this is ancient knowledge from my side, and has nothing to do with the discussion. Look at the quote above.
If it's "ancient knowledge", then why do you seem to have so little understanding of it? I pointed out specifics, you replied by saying I lacked the capacity to understand. As I said, calling someone an idiot doesn't make it so.

Btw, you never answered my previous post about "implying"
Done.

[KarlKoch]

You can start with printing this for your collegues:

Originally Posted by KarlKoch:
VOR navigation actually IS an external observation. Just like GPS is. Or does

DelphiUniverse:
Vor stations is not external observation, it is a broadcasting station. GPS is not an external observator either.

:haha:

And i repeat my question. What has the method of propagation to do with wether its external or internal data? With both GPS and VOR (also DME and whatnot) you rely on data you get from OUTSIDE the airplane. You really know the meaning of external and internal?
Let's assume you are in your car. Driving down the road. You stop at a traffic sign. Is the traffic sign an internal or external signal? Remember, the light shines into your car.

e: And to be clear, i will use the quoted statement of yours. It is so much wrong, it is close to being no more funny. Really close.

[DelphiUniverse]

And i repeat my question. What has the method of propagation to do with wether its external or internal data? With both GPS and VOR (also DME and whatnot) you rely on data you get from OUTSIDE the airplane. You really know the meaning of external and internal?
Let's assume you are in your car. Driving down the road. You stop at a traffic sign. Is the traffic sign an internal or external signal? Remember, the light shines into your car.

Well, lets just put it this way. The machinery in the airplane interprets the broadcasting signals. There is no feedback to the stations at all. So the signals are interpreted only inside of airplanes (with no tracking from vor stations) and that is no feedback.

That is no observation, now get on with your life. For once.

About dme, that has nothing to do with vor stations or gps, its just a distance measuring equipment. And dont bring up localizers either, thats irrelevant.

[Sailor Steve]

Point 1 = nonsense, its ones opinion, it shows what one feels when dealing with a certain member, regardless of whom is right or wrong.
Not nonsense. Attempting to disprove an argument by calling the other person names serves no purpose other than to antagonize. It neither proves one is right nor settles anything.

3 = Regard to last para, is your opinion so right? worthy to tell him he is wrong and continued to be wrong!! In your eyes yes, in anothers does it hold so much to be desired?
Possibly not, but since he has demeaned this whole discussion by attempting to prove a point by calling other members names, I can only reply to the best of my ability without actually doing the same myself, which is all too tempting.

[DelphiUniverse]

Not nonsense. Attempting to disprove an argument by calling the other person names serves no purpose other than to antagonize. It neither proves one is right nor settles anything.


Possibly not, but since he has demeaned this whole discussion by attempting to prove a point by calling other members names, I can only reply to the best of my ability without actually doing the same myself, which is all too tempting.

FOCUS on the discussion. We have all moved on.

[Takeda Shingen]

If we don't calm down, I can gaurantee that it will be hammertime.

The Management

[KarlKoch]

Well, lets just put it this way. The machinery in the airplane interprets the broadcasting signals. There is no feedback to the stations at all. So the signals are interpreted only inside of airplanes (with no tracking from vor stations) and that is no feedback.

That is no observation, now get on with your life. For once.

A VOR signal is no observation because there is no feedback to the ground station? Either you are now sitting in front of your monitor, laughing your a** off, or you have really not the slightest clue of what you are saying here.

You don't need any feedback to the ground station. Because it doesn't even have a receiver. Its just a transmitter. Does that change anything in regard to the location of the VOR-station?

e: whoops, bad word not filtered.

[DelphiUniverse]

A VOR signal is no observation because there is no feedback to the ground station? Either you are now sitting in front of your monitor, laughing your ass off, or you have really not the slightest clue of what you are saying here.

You don't need any feedback to the ground station. Because it doesn't even have a receiver. Its just a transmitter. Does that change anything in regard to the location of the VOR-station?

Well welcome into my own words. I just said this, the vor station broadcasts it doesnt accept any input. Hence you just proved yourself wrong too.
(Isnt there any decency in this forum, using their own mistakes to attack others)

I have to remind you again so that you dont forget what we are discussing.

Originally Posted by KarlKoch:
VOR navigation actually IS an external observation. Just like GPS is. Or does

DelphiUniverse:
Vor stations is not external observation, it is a broadcasting station. GPS is not an external observator either.

[KarlKoch]

Okay, i am now trying to let you understand something.
Imagine an 747 flying at 10'000 ft. Straight and level. You sit inside the plane as a passenger. The windows are blind, you cannot look outside. The plane is located over the atlantic ocean. You can only see water. No islands, no movement in the water, nothing. The air is calm, there is no movement of the air at all. Can you see or feel, that the aircraft is moving? Can you, in any way, determine if the plane is moving at all? You have no access to the cockpit, nor have you any other tools than your body.

edit:
Well welcome into my own words. I just said this, the vor station broadcasts it doesnt accept any input. Hence you just proved yourself wrong too.
(Isnt there any decency in this forum, using their own mistakes to attack others)

I have to remind you again so that you dont forget what we are discussing.

Originally Posted by KarlKoch:
VOR navigation actually IS an external observation. Just like GPS is. Or does

DelphiUniverse:
Vor stations is not external observation, it is a broadcasting station. GPS is not an external observator either.
What did i prove? With what? Its completely irrelevant if a station is transmitting information via broadcast or handshake. It can do both or it can not even send any signal at all, it won't change an external station into an internal or vice versa. It has nothing to do with each other at all.

[Lord Justice]

Not nonsense. Attempting to disprove an argument by calling the other person names serves no purpose other than to antagonize. It neither proves one is right nor settles anything.


Possibly not, but since he has demeaned this whole discussion by attempting to prove a point by calling other members names, I can only reply to the best of my ability without actually doing the same myself, which is all too tempting.Dont confuse to twist yet again, I made no mention about the name calling, I was remarking toward ones opinion of anothers education, i simply and meaningly stepped aside the petty insults, i do so understand to what you refer, I ask, beg, you read my postings with precision, I will either support or withdraw what I deem reasonable. If both parties wish to advance on the matter, to whats right and wrong then I shall sit on the wall as one normally does, and eat my popcorn. Just please watch the conduct gentlemen, how you present. Thank you. :salute:

[Nisgeis]

(Isnt there any decency in this forum, using their own mistakes to attack others)

You want the 'long winded and largely irrelevant arguments about aricraft that don't relate to submarine sims' forum for decency.

There is an old quote, when arguing with idiots, make sure your arguments are short and concise. There is truth in that.

There's another that says that you should avoid arguing with idiots, as they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. If true, it has an interesting implication about the person who wins the argument. Quite what that says about someone who claims to be the winner, I'm not sure.

[Sailor Steve]

I ask, beg, you read my postings with precision,
That's not always easy, as your meaning is not always clear. Unlike my previous comments on your manner of speech (or of writing, which is more precise), I mean no offense, but often it is difficult to be sure of what you mean us to understand. I can only reply to what I percieve to be your meaning, as opposed to your actual intent.

[DelphiUniverse]

Okay, i am now trying to let you understand something.
Imagine an 747 flying at 10'000 ft. Straight and level. You sit inside the plane as a passenger. The windows are blind, you cannot look outside. The plane is located over the atlantic ocean. You can only see water. No islands, no movement in the water, nothing. The air is calm, there is no movement of the air at all. Can you see or feel, that the aircraft is moving? Can you, in any way, determine if the plane is moving at all? You have no access to the cockpit, nor have you any other tools than your body.
You clearly are dragging this out of proportions. The claims were that you couldnt prove relative speed between aircraft and wind. And my claims were that you can, you use ground speed, indicated airspeed and true airspeed and besides airplanes have wind detectors outside too. YES THEY CAN, YES THEY CAN. (Your story up here is not on topic, I feel a lust to give you a pizza so that you can get out of here)


edit:

What did i prove? With what? Its completely irrelevant if a station is transmitting information via broadcast or handshake. It can do both or it can not even send any signal at all, it won't change an external station into an internal or vice versa. It has nothing to do with each other at all.

For christ sake, you just retold the same story that I have myself. You are repeating my own words. I explained to you that VOR stations are "stupid" and they DONT accept any input, and next you come with a post saying exactly the same thing AS IF I said the opposite. You are lost man, utterly lost and in the extreme wasting my time.

[DelphiUniverse]

That's not always easy, as your meaning is not always clear. Unlike my previous comments on your manner of speech (or of writing, which is more precise), I mean no offense, but often it is difficult to be sure of what you mean us to understand. I can only reply to what I percieve to be your meaning, as opposed to your actual intent.

Dont try to flatter 4Para for sharing opinions. He doesnt want you to tell him what opinions he should have. He told the truth. You cannot win a discussion by flattering people.

[Lord Justice]

Quite what that says about someone who claims to be the winner, I'm not sure.Though you did please to present it!! You feel humbly compelled to quote and advance?? :hmmm:

[DelphiUniverse]

You want the 'long winded and largely irrelevant arguments about aricraft that don't relate to submarine sims' forum for decency.



There's another that says that you should avoid arguing with idiots, as they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. If true, it has an interesting implication about the person who wins the argument. Quite what that says about someone who claims to be the winner, I'm not sure.

Claiming to be the winner is sometimes neccesary when you see things that other dont see. And sometimes there might be people who do that just because they are not the winner.

If we compare this philosophy to my case. Let me get this straight, if I ever felt that I lost a case, I would be out of here, very fast. Trust me on that.

[KarlKoch]

You clearly are dragging this out of proportions. The claims were that you couldnt prove relative speed between aircraft and wind. And my claims were that you can, you use ground speed, indicated airspeed and true airspeed and besides airplanes have wind detectors outside too. YES THEY CAN, YES THEY CAN. (Your story up here is not on topic, I feel a lust to give you a pizza so that you can get out of here)

True, it has nothing to do with sumarines at all. However, that doesn't make any of your arguments valid.


For christ sake, you just retold the same story that I have myself. You are repeating my own words. I explained to you that VOR stations are "stupid" and they accept any input, and next you come with a post saying exactly the same thing AS IF I said the opposite. You are lost man, utterly lost and in the extreme wasting my time.
No, i did not. And i repeat it again: a VOR station does NOT accept any input. At all. It doesn't even have a receiver built into it. It is technically not able to receive anything. But that doesn't place that station magically inside the airplane (=internal). It stays outside of the aircraft and is independant of the movement of the aircraft (=external). You keep mixing up reference frames. You won't understand aerodynamics (or hydrodynamics) if you don't get the difference between reference frames. One thing for you to think about. Are you just now sitting in your chair? If so, are you moving at all? Answer is at the end of this post.

But since you prefer to not answer my posts and keep saying the same (wrong, utterly wrong) story over and over, i hereby give up. As long as you don't read any literature on that subject or try to understand what others want to tell and explain you, there is no point in arguing with you. Congratulations, you won the argument. And i say that with direct respect to Nisgeis's post above.


Answer to the above question: Yes, you move. You move around the center of the earth as well as you move according to the movement of the earth in the universe. But you don't see or feel any movement, because you are in the same reference frame. You only have internal data.

[DelphiUniverse]

No, i did not. And i repeat it again: a VOR station does NOT accept any input. At all. It doesn't even have a receiver built into it. It is technically not able to receive anything.

Holy mother of christ, here you are doing it AGAIN. I just told you that VOR stations are stupid, broadcasting stations that dont accept input, and you repeat it after me. Why do you do that.

Ok, this is a good time for a break. (Just because im not responding, doesnt mean i will not respond later)

[Nisgeis]

Though you did please to present it!!

That's so true! :har:

[Nisgeis]

Let me get this straight, if I ever felt that I lost a case, I would be out of here, very fast.

I like when I find out I am wrong about things, because not only do I stop walking around with inaccurate information, but it also opens up new ways of thinking about things and perhaps connections that otherwise wouldn't have been made now can be ('Ah, so that's why...').

[Sailor Steve]

Dont try to flatter 4Para for sharing opinions.[/quote
Politeness and flattery are not the same thing. I was politely responding to his comments

[quote]He doesnt want you to tell him what opinions he should have.
And where did I try to do that?

[quote]He told the truth. You cannot win a discussion by flattering people.
But you seem to think you can win a discussion by insulting people. A discussion is not about "winning", it's about getting at the truth. In my previous posts I made several observations you have avoided answering, specifically that your original comparison of a submarine to an aircraft is invalid, as the way they operate is altogether different.

[DelphiUniverse]

[QUOTE=DelphiUniverse;1475192]Dont try to flatter 4Para for sharing opinions.[/quote
Politeness and flattery are not the same thing. I was politely responding to his comments

[quote]He doesnt want you to tell him what opinions he should have.
And where did I try to do that?


But you seem to think you can win a discussion by insulting people. A discussion is not about "winning", it's about getting at the truth. In my previous posts I made several observations you have avoided answering, specifically that your original comparison of a submarine to an aircraft is invalid, as the way they operate is altogether different.
Didnt have time to reply to all the quotes. When 15 people ask for evidence (God knows they asked for evidence for why a word was colored green) you probably understand why i couldnt keep up. ( I was frustrated because I didnt have time to answer all the quotes. It made me bitter because I had an answer to all of them)

Later.

[robbo180265]

I surely provided proof that they didnt need to INCREASE speed like krauter said.

And I also provided evidence that helicopters and harriers didnt need speed to fly.

And secondly, he suggested speed was a LAW, which it isnt, there is nothing to prove with that, there is no proof that speed is a law. You cant prove a negative.

Now understand me correctly, if speed is a law, you would see it take effect ALWAYS. And thats where it doesnt take effect, It is entirely possible to fly without the aircraft having speed. It is possible, piper cubs have done this, jet fighter like harriers can do this, helicopters can do this, sailplanes can do this.

If it WAS a law, it would be seen all over the spectrum, which we cant see all over the spectrum.

Everything you said below is wrong, i'm tired of this discussion now so I wont be quoting today.

Man you are so wrong - and you just wont admit it.

[Takeda Shingen]

Okay. This one is over.

The Management