Spit9 take-off(plus, a 100% successful take of method)

[Toad]

No, they probably should NOT be modeled as "jam the throttle, keep your feet on the floor and go fly" IF... and this is a big IF... you're looking for "realism"... whatever that is on a PC in your spare room.

You have to step back and look at the inclusion of auto-takeoff in AH1. If HT wanted "ultimate realism" that feature would not exist.

This GAME is just that.. it's a GAME with some realism added. I think he's tried to emphasize realism where it counts and deemphasized it where it doesn't really matter.

If his non-pilot clientele needs to take 60 online hours to learn basic aircraft maneuvering like take-off, landing, stalls and basic aerobatics and VFR navigation (pretty much what the first 60 hours in US PT aircraft offered during the war), then he may have difficulty attracting a sufficient number of clients to keep the shop open.

So, correctly, IMO, some things that are not key factors of the actual fighting (yes, like takeoff) have been simplified so the new members can get right to the action. At a later date, they can elect to not use auto-takeoff if they seek the ultimate high , the "realistic" takeoff of a 109G10 on their 19" monitor with plastic flight controls and four speaker surround sound.

I think his focus is on the fighting, primarily, and that's a good thing IMO.

I've probably got somewhere around 20K actual flying hours... I use autotakeoff all the time. Why? Because I can easily do it manually; it's no big challenge AND I can use that initially (normally) useless time to go get a beer or let the dogs out/in. But then, I'm sure this game could teach me lots and lots about realistic takeoffs. I'll guess I'll just miss out on that.

YMMV.

[Westy]

I see your point Toad but don't agree with it entirely.

 I agree that creating difficulty is not the same thing as adding realism. I also concur that HTC needs subscribers to stick around, but I disagree that AH is "just a game" so keep it as one, and keep it simple at that.  
 But why bother having flaps or dive breaks? Trim? Redout/blackouts? Stalls, compression and spins? Why have landing gear? Why not just give players air starts because landing and taking off just delays getting back into the fray and interrupts the fun. If it's all about having "fun" and damn the "realimZ" then why have so many sought after more complexity and realism, left one venue for another seeking it and why aren't we all still playing 1993's Air Warrior?

 IMO, a players aircombat "ability" will plateau at some point. Some sooner, some later.  And when that occurs IMO players have nothing left to do but "play" the "game."  For many the learning curve flat-lines, the countdown to boredom begins and burnout soon sets in.  

 With AH I liked how HTC managed to allow users to select automation for some features.  Presumably this was at a "cost" and was players did not get top performance for whatever feature they chose to automate; be it fuel/trim/prop pitch etc.

 I for one wish HTC would add more realism features that players could choose to automate should they not want to not tackle them.  Engine and aircraft managment features.  
 While players, such as I, could choose to extend the learning curve,  evolve more as "virtual" pilots of "virtual" WWII aircombat machines and perhaps (maybe the most important point) remain paying customers.
 
 Westy

[ergRTC]

I agree with what you say, and I also agree that this is a air combat game more than a flight sim, but...

I also like the immersion, and of course not everyone does, or even believes its immersive.  Forcing others to follow some of that realism is half the fun.  I think HTs comprimises have been great.  Autotakeoff combat trim, autoclimb, autolevel (essentials for sanity and beer drinking), but nothing like 'no canopy view' and the like.


Of course i doubt autotake off is going to be in the TOD.



maybe they could add autoland and the furballers would be set.  FOr those that come back that is.

[Toad]

Westy, I'll reiterate this line:

I think he's tried to emphasize realism where it counts and deemphasized it where it doesn't really matter.

Some of the things you mention matter in air combat, like flaps and dive breaks. Use of these can be critical in an engagement and a superior knowledge of how and when to use them (as well as when not to use them) can be critical to winning an engagement. It may well separate the "men from the boys" in the game.

OTOH, takeoff doesn't fall into this category, really. Not IMO. Yeah, you have to get airborne to fight but the learning curve on that is not very steep or long. And adding difficulty where it doesn't historically belong simply to make it harder is, well, stupid.

Then there are misconceptions, like autotrim. It's a rare historical account indeed that attributes a pilot's victory to his ability to manipulate the trim wheels while hotly engaged. Yeah, it may have happened but generally the trim wasn't touched much during a hot enagement. Maybe a bit of pitch trim, rudder to a significantly lesser extent and aileron probably not at all. So the whole Combat Trim/Manual Trim measure of a man's AH skillz is sorta funny to me.


Don't get me wrong, there's no harm in "selectable" features as long as they don't confer an advantage where there should be none.

Tracer/No Tracer is a good selectable feature. It allows more suprise but at a cost to those not well versed in shooting to begin with.

It's like autopilot. Fighters didn't have what we have. Now, you may choose to sit there and carefully manage your climbout to 10k or whatever, immeresed in the overwhelming realism of it all. Me, I'll hit a keystroke and go for another beer.

Erg, autotakeoff may well be in TOD. What possible difference could it make? With most folks' level of in-game experience, you should be able to easily get off the ground with these FM's.

Heck, in order to promote "realistic" encounters within the proposed time frames, they may have starts at altitude. Will this turn you off TOD? It wouldn't bother me at all; I didn't come here for the climbout, I came for the fight.

[TweetyBird]

>>But why bother having flaps or dive breaks? Trim? Redout/blackouts? Stalls, compression and spins? Why have landing gear? Why not just give players air starts because landing and taking off just delays getting back into the fray and interrupts the fun.<<

From a game design point of view, the things you listed are nuances that make the game more fun. It also fun ( and educational) knowing they are based in realism.  Not only are you fighting the enemy, you are doing so while fighting gravity. Landings are optional of course Seriously, landings add a sense of completion and confirm a successful mission. Even when you can land with your eyes closed, landing a successful mission online is NEVER boring. Its the reward you've worked for. Its the victory lap. With that in mind, I have no problem with the fact that landings may be a little more difficult in AHII.

Takeoffs are a minor boring part of the game. You can't feel the g's or the rush, so its akin to booting a computer - as Toad said, a good time to grab a beer.
The time it takes to get to a fight , however, is very important so air starts would change the dynamics of the game. If I wanted a flight sim to practice touch and goes, I get one dedicated to realism and not game play.

I agree with Toad.

[Cobra412]

Hitech,

I'm curious as to which engine is modeled for the Spitfire IX.  Is it the Griffon Spitfire or the Rolls-Royce Merlin based Spitfire.  

After reading this article by Jeff Ethell Jeff Ethell's Pireps - Supermarine Spitfire it sounds as if the modeling is a Griffon Spitfire due to what it takes to properly takeoff.  With this it actually seemed as if the modeling was correct.  Not sure as far as the sensitivity level though as I have no real flight time to speak of.

After following the exact opposite of the steps for take off he described I was off and flying with ease.  I figured this was due to the fact the Merlin engine wasn't being modeled for this particular Spitfire IX.  Also since I have no idea who Jeff Ethell is and if his accounts are acurate it'd be nice to know the skinny on this all.  

Just seems very odd that when before I couldn't get off the ground to save my life and then I read his description of taking off and apply it that I could with ease.

[Sarge1]

Originally posted by hitech
It was just a bug. Whats actually was going on with the spits is a portion of the wing was draging the ground when it rolled.

HiTech

this is a good reason too why it is not working correctly

[Cobra412]

Okay I found the answer to my question.  The Mk IX was never fitted with the Griffon power plant.  So I'm assuming Jeff Ethell was not necessarily just describing the Mk IX but all variants of the Spitfire itself.

But that brings up another question since it has to be the Merlin powerplant in the Mk IX then isn't it's torque characteristics reversed?  It would seem so with how Mr. Ethell describes taking off in the Merlin based aircraft.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Cobra412
Hitech,

I'm curious as to which engine is modeled for the Spitfire IX.  Is it the Griffon Spitfire or the Rolls-Royce Merlin based Spitfire.

The Spitfire Mk IX in AH is specifically an early Spitfire F.Mk IX powered by a Rolls-Royce Merlin 61 engine.  It has some options that it should not, such as the option to take .50 cals and rockets.  The Spitfire Mk IX was the first Spitfire to be equipped with a two stage engine, which is why it does so well at altitude.

The first Griffon powered Spitfire to enter service was the stopgap Spitfire Mk XII of which 112 were built.  It was powered by a single stage Rolls-Royce Griffon III and used to run down low level Fw190 nuisance raiders.

The first planned production Griffon Spitfire was the Spitfire Mk XIV that we have in AH.  It was powered by a two stage Rolls-Royce Griffon 65.

[Cobra412]

If this is in fact a Spitfire F.Mk IXC then you are correct.  If it is a F.Mk IXE then it did have the 2x20mm and 2x.5 machine guns then you are not... Thats why I'm curious about the FM.  

Gonna do more research to see if the actual torque model is correct.  Only reason I'm saying this is because from one of the sites I've found on taking off it seems the torque is backwards with it being the Merlin engine.

[ergRTC]

I would wait until hitech fixes the planes dragging piece problem before you discuss take off torque direction.....

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Cobra412
If this is in fact a Spitfire F.Mk IXC then you are correct.  If it is a F.Mk IXE then it did have the 2x20mm and 2x.5 machine guns then you are not... Thats why I'm curious about the FM.  

Hitech or Pyro (I don't recall which) long ago stated that the Spitfire Mk IX in AH had a Merlin 61 engine.  None of the 300 or so Spitfire Mk IX's powered by a Merlin 61 had the option to carry the .50s.

I am not as familiar with the Spitfire F.Mk IXs powered by the Merlin 63, so there may have been some of those with the .50s.

The Spitfire LF.Mk IX, powered by the Merlin 66, and Spitfire HF.Mk IX, powered by the Merlin 70, both had many examplesthat carried the .50s.

From a stand point of production and significance to the war (as well as having what historical pilots mean when they talk about the Spit IX) the Spitfire LF.Mk IX should be added.  There were literally 10 times as many Merlin 66 Spitfires as Merlin 61 Spitfires.

[AKChucklz]

Okay from what I did, both the Spit and the Pony were easy to get off the ground, but on the other hand the C47 would never get airborn, I kinda drove it all over the airfield, now this is one that needs fixed... We have to be able to get the goons up and troops out...

[zmeg]

You got a calibration problem or something, the C47 is not at all difficult to take off, neither is the spit 9 once you learn how.

[Cobra412]

Here's just one of the listings about the Supermarine Spitfire F.Mk IXE and the other Spitfire variants.  Supermarine Spitfires

Through some research I've found many sites with the same information.  Still trying to find photos of this particular version and it's wing design.