Version 0.46 "...where'd my Pony go??"

[Hangtime]

(this post and new thread pulled from the tail end of the "another whine" thread)

Juzz! Thank you... I knew I'd read somewhere in my distant past about dive brakes on the Apache.. and remember also hearing that it was considered a very competent AC compared to its early war contempories. Allison power??? No turbo?? Dammo wish I had my library..

Lephturn.. yup.. I don't disagree. The F4U seemed undermodeled in previous rev's when I flew it.. hopeless climb sticks out as my biggest surprise in it. My memory is rusty but I had it mentally pegged as one of the best sustained climb performers of the war. That sure aint how it felt when I flew it two revisions ago.

In any case.. I would have prefered seeing the F4U upgraded.. (even better: the -4 with those awsome cannon released)...and yes, even give the LW AC their just due with performance adjustments closer to the Mustangs rather than seeing the Mustang made a WB's gelding.

Its franky impossible to fairly judge my preferred ride against the other AC in the sim from my seat in the "interested participants" section of the Flight Models Debating Society; (especially since I only have extensive expericence with the P51D in this sim) and I'm very uncomfortable about my statements now.. I ain't got a leg to stand on and I know it.

But; the P51D as modeled now in this revision just don't have that "feeling" that it had and I miss it.  I'd rather see 100 overmodeled A8's or Doras roaring down and have that eager Version 0.45 Pony to fly against them than this gelding they gave me yesterday to fly against one Fiesler Storch.

"..thats my story; and I'm stickin to it!"

Thank you.. and I'll watch for those performance tables as they progress.

Salute!

Hang

------------------
PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8


[This message has been edited by Hangtime (edited 01-14-2000).]

[Fishu]

<Grabs popcorn>  

Ahh.. so nice to see stang and spitfrie weenies whining and complaining how their superior aircraft has become one step closer to the human technology...  

I tell you something.. I've hadnt had that feel with Fw190 or Bf109 for long time, whats so wonderful when P-51 doesnt have that something?

[Westy]

 Hmmm. Let's toss a log on the fire.
 Awfully cold up here near Boston tonight..

 Why is it that the P51-D should not be as good in Aces High (or any other WWII sim) as it had a reputation and historical precedent for being? Why do some feel the  ME-109G and K series were so damn good when historically and by all acounts they were not
 How could a late war 51 turn fight so well with a 109? Outdive it? Out accelerate it?
 Out turn it and even by golly stand on it';s tail and stall AFTER the 109 stalls??
 Wait!
 Now let's not start hitting the books, ruffle the pages of historical exageration  and begin rattling off numbers, figures, one off model examples....
 Let start with the story telling. Why don't we try and let the vets tell us how it really was.
 I'll start.

 http://www.cebudanderson.com./ch1.htm

 --Westy

(And I still want my P-47-M so I can have some 190D9 and TA-152 hors d’oeuvres!!)

[funked]

To everybody:

I wanna see numbers.  Lots of talk and no hard data.

P.S.  Remember that when evalutating the fidelity of a simulation, the benchmark is real life, not other sims or the previous versions of this sim.

[Hangtime]

whoa!  Hold on now... before the damn numbers and and heartrates start crankin up; lemme try and put a handle on this particular AC modeling discussion before it heats up into yet another inconclusive furball of annoyed egos.

1. I am of the opinion that of the AC currently presented in this sim the P51D is  positioned at the top of the energy fighter food chain. I am also of the opinion that this exalted position for this AC is correct; from a historical perspective.

2. Since this AC is obviously a benchmark; all other AC performace characteristics are understandably compared to this one.

3. I have in a previous post indicated that my impression of this current revision of this particular AC is that it has been subtly unenhanced by a small degree; and that I am in NOT the best position to evaluate what other changes where made in the other AC to further close the performance gap between the 'benchmark' plane and the other AC in the sim.

4. I stated that I liked the 'feel' of the previous revisions P51; and having reduced the energy characteristics makes this oustanding AC a somewhat lesser creature than it was. At the immense risk of falling on my face here; I spoke up and said so. Even now; some 60 sorties in on the new plane; I am not saying it has lost its standing as top dog on the E fighter food chain; I'm saying it's not as crisp and competent as it was.

5. In a nutshell; the V.45 P51D was an oustanding plane. My point was I would have much preferred the other AC saw similar enhancements to bring them in line with the PREVIOUS benchmark; not detuning the Mustang (and hence potentialy the sim as a whole) to a lesser level.

6. This is a superb sim.. head and shoulders above the others of the genere. I'd hate to see the oustanding benchmark (and hence the overall performance of all the AC) shifted further in the direction that 'detuning' the benchmark will take it. Pyro; please gimme back the version 0.45 P51! Use THAT plane as the benchmark!

Hang (climbs off soapbox)

[This message has been edited by Hangtime (edited 01-14-2000).]

[wells]

Westy,

Historical exaggeration?  lol

1.  There was no LW after D-day.
2.  The LW that P-51's did see, were 'below', outnumbered and/or were concentrating on the bombers!
3.  Any LW that the P-51's shot up after D-day were inexperienced pilots who mostly ran away at first contact, if possible.
4.  AH is based on physics and physics shows that a P-51D with a full tank of fuel CAN'T do all those things you say it could do against it's LW counterparts.  

[funked]

Hangtime:

"My point was I would have much preferred the other AC saw similar enhancements to bring them in line with the PREVIOUS benchmark; not detuning the Mustang (and hence potentialy the sim as a whole) to a lesser level."

I disagree.  The sim should be tuned to match the performance of the REAL AIRCRAFT.  The performance of other aircraft in the sim is irrelevant.  So is complaining by users that is not supported by engineering data.  Demonstrate that the 0.46 Mustang underperforms the real item, and you've got a case.  Otherwise phhhhhhhht.  

Westy:

It's all about the numbers.

You can't do flight models from old-timers' stories and combat results.  Even if there was some way to convert combat results into simulation parameters, combat results have more to do with numbers, training, tactics, and the strategic situation than the performance of the aircraft in combat.

If you want to build a flight model, you need to get flight test data and measurements of physical properties of the aircraft, then build some sound physical models that can approximate the real behavior given the physical properties.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 01-15-2000).]

[Fishu]

V.45 mustang.. I doubt P-51s did climb better than spitfire IX or 109G10...
It did climb nicely over readings in the climb gauge.. my guess goes around 4500-4700fpm with WEP on, even without WEP gauge was out of readings...
So go figure..  
(0 to 15k climb...)

[Minotaur]

 

Historical exaggeration? lol

1. There was no LW after D-day.
2. The LW that P-51's did see, were 'below', outnumbered and/or were concentrating on the bombers!
3. Any LW that the P-51's shot up after D-day were inexperienced pilots who mostly ran away at first contact, if possible.
4. AH is based on physics and physics shows that a P-51D with a full tank of fuel CAN'T do all those things you say it could do against it's LW counterparts.

I believe this to be, "For the Most Part", true.  I am not trying to "Flame" the post, just taking advantage of some quoted text.    

Therefore, can one really say?
1) The P-51D was superior to LW planes at the time
2) The LW planes at the time were actually superior to the P-51D

(When it could be talk of actually how well, one man killed another   )

Maybe I could say that no one really knows how they might have stacked up on equal terms.  If I tried to say, it would only be a good guess at best.  

IMO this game needs "Play Balance" as much as it needs "Absolute Accuracy".  

Mino  


[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 01-15-2000).]

[Yeager]

Took up several rides last night and the 51 stuck out as a crisp ride.  Went up for a few minutes earlier today and it was sluggish and unresponsive in comparrison!

Its just me I think......

Yeager

[TT]

 You mean they sent that one back to Roswell. I am beside myself with dispair.

 I can fly this one without feeling like im cheating.

                       Just another yank TT.

[This message has been edited by TT (edited 01-15-2000).]

[Hangtime]

Yup. Shipped back to Roswell. on a truck.

It's still beta.. and I hope HT and Pyro spend a bunch of time in it in the upcomming week or so.

We can trot out and compare in minute detail all mfg's data; test data; objective and subjective comparisons, war stories and the PX laundry lists ad naseaum till HT's sheep come home.

The final fact is it's HT and Pyro's expertiese and experience that will weigh heaviest in the comparitive tone of the flight models. They've got a heluva lot more experince at constructing WWII Air Combat Simulations than I do.. or anybody else I know.

I'm not questioning the numbers. If you wanna question the numbers; ask Pyro to trot em out and I suppose if he's disposed to do so he will. FACT: the numbers wont sell me on this sim or flight model.. how it feels to me will.

Yes; it's a playabilty issue for me, balanced against historical credibilty, just as it is for all of you.. and as others have pointed out previously all the rest is just noise.

Since Pyro has the relative performance numbers.. the buck stops there. Just like all the other folks here that have flown AW or WB; we have certain expectations based on previous experience and over the past months have come to conclusions regarding relative merits.

True statement: If the benchmark AC is a dog; this will impact my assesment of the sim.

That is all.

Hang

------------------
PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8

[funked]

Hangtime:

I guess it's all priorities.  I just want the sim planes to fly as much like the real ones as possible.  That's what distinguishes AH and WB from lesser competitors.

If any balancing needs to be done, it can be done by selecting which planes are used, not by artificially derating or uprating the performance of planes.  

E.g. by accurately modeling the Me 109G-10 instead of the more common but sluggish Me 109G-6, Messerschmitt guys get a fighting chance.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 01-15-2000).]

[Hristo]

I agree with Funked when it comes to FMs. Please make them as accurate as possible.

Game balance should be established by plane choice, not by tweaking FMs.

As for historical record of a certain plane, AH is different than WW2 in too many aspects. Otherwise we might start hearing complaints of type: “…but 109 made more air-to-air kills than any other plane in history…”, etc. And while this might be true, it is mostly due to historical situation, not because of its flight characteristics. Same with any other plane.

[pzvg]

Wait one folks,
"historical accuracy"? You mean like taking off and finding out that your carb de-ice is broke, so you can't go over 10k? Or maybe that last 8g turn threw the links in the gun boxes over, and your guns jam? Chart comparisons are meaningless except as checks for technical fidelity, a lot of different factors apply in real life that aren't on any chart, I always hear this thread about "It won the war, so it has to be the better plane" by that standred, one would have to say that US infantry was superior to Wehrmacht infantry, The sherman tank was superior to the Panther, etc, etc. You
see where I'm going? Now don't get me wrong,
I'm not say the 51 should be undermodeled or something, I just say like Hang, that if the 190 is flown by a competent pilot co-alt and E then you should not have a "special" advantage just because you're in a pony, it was good, but not that good.
(covering myself in beer so flames produce sweet smell)  

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"