Author Topic: Official NiK2 performance data. (Read 547 times)

yowser · « **Reply #15 on:** October 15, 2000, 03:36:00 PM »

If you're so sure you're getting beat by the plane and not the player...fly their plane. I suspect you'll soon discover it's the player that's been beating you.

I'll bet anything if you only had one plane in this game, making everything equal, that you would still have people complaining

.

yowser

[This message has been edited by yowser (edited 10-15-2000).]

funked · « **Reply #16 on:** October 15, 2000, 03:43:00 PM »

Fscott if you want such an answer you should post in the aircraft forum. A lot of the information used to create the FMs is the result of expensive and time-consuming research. So don't be surprised if HTC doesn't want to share. And keep in mind they have already given us the climb and speed charts.

funked · « **Reply #17 on:** October 15, 2000, 03:45:00 PM »

LOL Yowser so true! You could put the same FM on all of them (keep the graphics as-is) and people would still find something to complain about. In fact I'd like to see HTC do this as a "Pepsi Challenge".

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-15-2000).]

juzz · « **Reply #18 on:** October 15, 2000, 06:02:00 PM »

Quote

You guys are really gonna be hating life when the Ki-84-Ib gets in the game.

Hehehe, I was just thinking that same thing last night. GEORGE's brother-in-law FRANK is even better than he is. 800lbs lighter and 30mph faster, four Head-on-5 cannon...

Fishu · « **Reply #19 on:** October 15, 2000, 07:18:00 PM »

Let's model LW planes also by 100 octane testings

Karnak · « **Reply #20 on:** October 15, 2000, 08:17:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu:
Let's model LW planes also by 100 octane testings

Only if the Japanese get to use their 100 octane test data. Think ya'd mind 400+mph N1K2s? How about 380mph A6M5bs?

Sisu
-Karnak

Vulcan · « **Reply #21 on:** October 15, 2000, 08:51:00 PM »

Well the n1ki is sure pulling some death defying manoevres.

I merged with one from a hi 5k split (15k/10k) in a tiff, he was climbing up so his E wasn't great, I passed straight curved up and went into a 60 degree zoom, the n1ki does a 180 then pulls up and follows me... and starts gaining and then blammo I'm dead. There was at least 4 seconds between the merge and me dying.

I couldn't believe my eyes, I was BnZ'ing this n1ki from a definite alt advantage, pulled no hard turns etc. He comes from a lesser E position, pulls a hard 180, and climbs AND gains on me.

Something ain't right in Kansas.

funked · « **Reply #22 on:** October 15, 2000, 09:00:00 PM »

Fishu, Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190A-5 are modeled from 100 octane testing.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-15-2000).]

Fishu · « **Reply #23 on:** October 15, 2000, 09:43:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by funked:
Fishu, Fw 190A-8 and Fw 190A-5 are modeled from 100 octane testing.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-15-2000).]

*if* it is so, then why does N1K2s have anti-gravitation fields?

Vermillion · « **Reply #24 on:** October 16, 2000, 07:18:00 AM »

If the late war Japanese aircraft got to actually use 100 octane flight test data it would scare the ever living crap outta yah.

427 mph Ki-84

Why would you fly anything else?

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

wells · « **Reply #25 on:** October 16, 2000, 11:00:00 AM »

From the TAIC manual, it appears that their data for the George 11 comes directly from the Rex model. They used the same weight as the Rex for their calculations (7700 lbs) in which they give 5.5 min to 20k and 407 mph top speed. They even gave it the benefit of water injection, doing the calcs for 2050 hp (92 fuel grade). It appears that they eventually got their hands on a George 21 and found it to be 1100 lbs heavier with a HP rating of 1990. Given that information, a time to climb of 6.5 min is reasonable as there is no climb data given.

easymo · « **Reply #26 on:** October 16, 2000, 11:29:00 AM »

Please stop talking about the KI84. Im getting a woody.

juzz · « **Reply #27 on:** October 17, 2000, 04:25:00 AM »

Wow, that's fast Verm. Pity it had no guns eh?

Vermillion · « **Reply #28 on:** October 17, 2000, 07:57:00 AM »

No it had guns, its just that it probably had no ammunition

Doesn't matter much. You know as well as I do, that total weight has only a small affect on Maximum Speed. Weight is more a factor in acceleration and handling.

So with a rough guess, I figure that max speed would be effect by around 5mph if you added ammunition weight to it.

I'll still take a 420mph Ki84 any day of the week.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

fscott · « **Reply #29 on:** October 17, 2000, 10:14:00 AM »

I think theorizing on a plane's performance when using the infamous *if* is a waste of time. Also, I think it is unfair and unrealistic to base an aircraft's performance on equipment and fuel that was never hsitorically used. I'm sure we could soup up any old warbird with today's latest fuel technology and get even more horsepower out of them. This isn't what I want and I don't think it's what anyone else wants. Just because post-war tests using different fuels brought a particular aircraft up to it's maximum performance does not permit AH or any other sim to model that performance data. Unless of course the sim's goal is to model thus. I think that AH is meant to be historically accurate. Even if Japan was using 70 octane fuel and could only get 330mph out of a Ki-84 than that's what the sim should model, otherwise I would want no part in it.

fscott