P38

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Aww, poor little Kweassa, he's insulted because I made a comment about his 109 thread. Well, ain't that just sad.

I actually read the thread with interest, right up until the point you made the smartprettythang comment about P-38 pilots.
The cheap shot regarding the real P-38 pilots earlier in this thread was more than a little over the top as well.

Perhaps, in the future, if you don't want to be insulted, you'll take care not to be such a salamander and insult others. Remember that the next time you start to type your cute little remarks. If you want some respect, remember it's a two way street.

Autoretract is a whine, but stability issues aren't? Pure B.S. Kweassa, but then I'd expect nothing less from you.

Oh, and the autoretract forces micromanagement alright. No where in real life does any pilot have to manage his speed down to 1MPH, Hell the speed instrumentation can't even be calibrated that close. But in AH, if you exceed a preset speed by 1MPH, BANG! autoretract. What a crock. You think real pilots flew ANYTHING like that? The idea that they stared at their airspeed indicator, micromanaging their speed down to a sinlge MPH is as ludicrous as autoretract itself. One thing is for certain, if they watched their airspeed that close, they died, because they were watching their instruments instead of their enemy. Air to air combat is a lot more VFR, not IFR.


Your argument that removing autoretract will suddenly bring about a herd of gomers flying the P-38 and dropping their flaps like Tom Cruise in Top Gun is pure facetious garbage (actually it's more like pure feces, but then so is the rest of your argument). Your position that you are "protecting us from becoming just like IL2" is just as bogus. Removing autoretract and replacing it with a properly designed damage model will not turn AH into IL2.

Gamey gomers won't fly the P-38 to use it  for air to air combat anyway. It isn't an easy mode plane. It is a big target. It is too slow. It is too hard to learn how to really fly.

Oh, and if your position that removing autretract will help other planes more than the P-38 is true, then bring it on. I'm not scared of it. Done right, it will only make the game better.

Real pilots didn't take off again 15 seconds after they were shot down, especially not if they were dead. Real pilots didn't dive into a furball just for the sake of having a fun fight. I can go on and on about what real pilots didn't do. I can change that to average real pilots and go on ad infinitum.

Oh, and Naudet, I flew for years with a damage model that wrecked my flaps if I exceeded the structural limits, it worked just fine for me. And no, everybody was not flying around doing Tom Cruise impressions as Kweassa suggests. Far from it.

[Naudet]

Oh, and Naudet, I flew for years with a damage model that wrecked my flaps if I exceeded the structural limits, it worked just fine for me.

Was that damage model an absolute one, where the flaps were wrecked once you got beyond a certain speed or a relative one, where the chance to damage the flaps increased with time and speed you exceeded the limits?

[Kweassa]

Oh, and the autoretract forces micromanagement alright. No where in real life does any pilot have to manage his speed down to 1MPH, Hell the speed instrumentation can't even be calibrated that close. But in AH, if you exceed a preset speed by 1MPH, BANG! autoretract. What a crock. You think real pilots flew ANYTHING like that?

 Nope.

 I don't think people watched speeds to the 1mph line in real life.
 
 In real life, pilots wouldn't have had to micromanage anything like that since they would not attempt to leave the flaps down under suspicious conditions with high likelihood of overspeeding in the first place. Since they don't do gamey shi* like that in the first place, they never are in a situation where they have to micromanage stuff. They avoid bad situations like people avoid drinking and driving.

 However, instead of admitting that following a superior maneuvering plane down the rail is a stupid thing to do and try going the long way around, you guys are so horny about showing off what superior pilots you are by outmaneuvering better turning planes, that you insist in sticking your noses into the rear-end of the enemy plane and stay there like glued on, upto a very fishy point which might be inherently dangerous -  upto the speeds which real pilots would usually refrain from stressing their flight controls.

 And when that fails, you come to the boards screaming and whining that your plane is broken.

 If every combat-flap equipped plane pilot attempted such stuff, or even most pilots for that matter, there won't be any need of E concept or teamwork maneuvering in the first place. Every P-38 pilot in the war must have known following a superior maneuvering plane move-by-move is mostly a very dangerous deal which should be avoided in the first place.

 And yet, you fall deaf ears on numerous notations of the general tendencies of air combat in WW2 and insisit on doing the rare stuff which is hardly ever confirmed as being the norm - in the name of "REALISM".

The idea that they stared at their airspeed indicator, micromanaging their speed down to a sinlge MPH is as ludicrous as autoretract itself. One thing is for certain, if they watched their airspeed that close, they died, because they were watching their instruments instead of their enemy. Air to air combat is a lot more VFR, not IFR.

 They wouldn't need to watch their airspeed so close, because they'd never put their plane into a situation where such close attention was needed, in the first place.

 However, being the game this is, you don't risk any of your precious limbs in the virtual skies, so naturally, you mostly insist on doing dumb stuff that gets you killed and then whine about why it's not working;   "If only the flaps stayed downn I'd not .. blahblahblah .. stall.. blahblah.. spin.. blahblah.. me killed.. blahblahblah.. so can we get the limits raised for my favorite plane?"

 Kindly for us, HT for the most part let us do stupid stuff the way we please if we really wanted to do so. But he figured that there needs to be at least an implementation of a serious drawback in general efficiency of "stupid stuff" so at least it serves enough warning to the gamers that doing "stupid stuff" has a higher chance of getting you killed than doing "not stupid stuff".

 So, when we, who are playing this comfy virtual game, want to do "stupid stuff" and unnecessarily risk our butts in a what might be potentially dangerous situation, we have some motivation to think twice about it, so our actions would at least loosely match that of real pilots who for very different reasons, would also think twice about doing "stupid stuff".

 And where does that motivation comes from?

 It comes from the fact that if we do the "stupid stuff" of relying too heavily on a secondary flight control and hope a plate of metal sticking out of a wing is gonna hold back the speed of a 10 thousand pound airplane descending from the sky, its gonna backfire sooner or later.

 In other words, it gives us some consequences which serves as a good reason to avoid doing "stupid stuff".

 So if doing "stupid stuff" gets you killed, I suggest you stop doing "stupid stuff", like holding flaps down when the plane is speeding. That way you won't get the death stall spiral, and you won't get killed.

 Or, you can do the "stupid stuff" again and again and come to the boards each time you fail, until you get more scorn and ridicule from all of the other players who usually don't do "stupid stuff".

 Your choice, m8.

[Wotan]

I'm pretty sure that I've been playing these sort of games longer than you have and in games where flap damage was modeled from over speeding and honestly that was probably the only aspects in those two games that I never heard a whine about.

You would be wrong.. I have been in AH since the doors opened in WB before that AW early on (it sucked even when thats all there was) plus plenty of others. Some where the flaps ripped off, some where they jammed and created lots of drag. Auto retract, jam or break it won't matter to me one bit.

You and the other 4 or 5 tards in this thread are the only ones who ever whined about auto retract flaps. If the limit is 250 mph or what ever it is what difference does make what happens if you go beyond that limit?

Some planes in rl had auto retract F4Fs for example...

This thread is all about limits as the original poster admits...

It tards like yourself who wear out  your flap buttons. As I said I never used flaps in AH, not even when landing. How would I be coddled? You are under some delusion in thinking that a button click here or there makes you 'skilled'.

Learn how to manage your speed better and you wont worry about flaps.

Random failures above critical limits should be implemented upon all airframes not just one.

BS the only things that should be modeled (in terms of aircraft) are those things that can be clearly defined and documented. Making up some random parameters is no more 'realistic' then auto retract now.

The limits HT uses are documented. They have been in affect for 4 + years. They are not new and if anyone has been here for a reasonable amount of time understand those limits and work with in them.

It's the whiners who want their favorite plane fixed to suit their particular flying style.

Kweassa, Karnak and Grunherz (and HT) all called it correctly early on in this thread:

HT was right all along.

Twist it, warp it, reverse it, flip it all you want. The bottom line is still;

"I just want the limits raised. For my plane"

Look out Kweassa the Cap'n don't respect you...

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Naudet
Was that damage model an absolute one, where the flaps were wrecked once you got beyond a certain speed or a relative one, where the chance to damage the flaps increased with time and speed you exceeded the limits?

According to what I was told by the developers, it was progressive, which is as it should be. Most often, they jammed in the position they were in when the damage occurred. That is also as it should be, because they would do exactly that in real life. the forces applied to the flaps would eventually exceed the structural limits of the tracks, and it would be the tracks that would fail. The tracks would become bent or twisted, and the flaps would no longer move on them.

In the game, that would be a severe penalty, because at last test, the P-38J would hit 347MPH at 5K on WEP, in clean condition. That makes it slower than a lot of the planes already, and a lot slower than some. Add the associated drag, and the speed would be further reduced. The P-38 could not escape hardly any planes at that point, and would be forced to fight. It would already be very slow, and in need of the flaps. After the first turn or so, it would need to deploy the flaps further than they were due to speed loss. However, it got into that position because the flaps were jammed, so no more flap is available. So now, not only can it not get fast, it can't turn when slow either, effectively neutering it, so that anyone with decent skills can kill it in nearly any plane.

Now you know why the P-38 pilots are wondering what the fuss is about. A progressive damage model would make the above scenario very possible. The advantage to the P-38 is that it would no longer become INSTANTLY unstable because it gained 1 MPH and the flaps suddenly retracted when no pilot in his right mind would retract his flaps. He wouldn't stare at the airspeed indicator and sweat over 1 MPH in speed either. He'd keep a GENERAL idea of what his speed was and take care of the fight.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Wotan


Look out Kweassa the Cap'n don't respect you... [/B]

Wow, I'm deeply concerned. Between you, him, and Crump, I'm all heart broke.

[OIO]

Calm down guys (sheesh to have ME tell you this.. lol ) .


I like the idea of putting a retract timer someone mentioned above.

4 seconds after the deployment point is passed the flaps autoretract.  And this would apply to ALL airplanes not just the 38.


Kweassa: " The plane wasn't designed to withstand speeds over 250mph with its maneuvering flaps applied."

Wrong. Lockheed engineers added locks to prevent the deployment of flaps in the later versions of the 38 (G,J or L I forget which) because a number of 38s in the front were coming home with flap damage. Pilots had used them in combat at speeds above 300mph .. especially at high altitudes where a notch of flaps was of tremendous help in manouvering.

After that the engineers decided on a 'safe' speed to deploy the flaps and that was that.

key words for you: came home, used them, engineers.

[hitech]

First there are no plans to change flaps, and topics in this thread have not changed anything in my thinking.

Every request I have seen comes down to one request. We wish the current limit on flaps to be raised. They are disgusied in multiple ways, but they are always the same request. We wish to excede the current max speed limit in some way.

We do not model to some great philosphy. We look at how to model certain systems with some basic guide lines.

1. I realy dislike randomizers of any type.

    My view is that randomizers that effect outcomes should only be used as a last resort. I can sight multiple instance where randomizers are always complained about . We all know about the ack randomizer, but look at the last complaint about the fire randomizer time. Where some one is complaining that a zero flew for a long time. Well it just hit the extream side of the randomizer limit.

   So I only ever use randomizers as a last resort when it effects the outcome of fights.

2. Each system is looked at as to how it effects enjoyment vs how it effects realism.

Take the the other example of landing gear. It also has a hard limit just like the flap does, we make big noises before it is damaged. But gear is realy not used much in combat, hence it is more of just a reminder to raise your gear to keep them from being damaged. But at the same time we do not allow you to lowerer them past there set speed. All choice are made on nuiscance realism VS game play.

Other choices made in the landing gear modling. In reality the gear would most likly just be bent back. And stuck in that position until a machanic had a ferm talking with the pilot. What we choose to do , is remove them. The resone is that if you forget to raise them on take off. You can still continue the fight and make a belly landing with out gear. And no harm was done to your enjoyment that flight. But the only consideration about landing gear as far as realism goes is that people should not exceed there limits.

3. Flaps.
    Are different than landing gear because they can be used as a primary control in a fight. (on a side note, when dog fighting real ap51, my auto retract flaps was the pilot up front, I departed the aircraft because he raised them at the limit speed).

   In almost all our modeling we choose to stick the the flight manual. Cases could be made about real planes being modified slightly to increase there power, or that we should put a randomizer in to extend there wep time. But all these things have one thing in common, you are trying to model the completly unknown.  And more importantly there is no real consiquence do damaging the plane. For instance it realy isn't an all or nothing with flaps. Over speeding them could just bend some linkages, The would still function. But repair, and a scolding would happen after landing. There realy is no way for us to model those consquences, no do we realy desire to try. It isn't what the game is about.

A lot of people fly lots of different planes. My belife is that people enjoy trying differnt fights in different planes. But most are realy not interested in memorizing the speed settings of all flap positions. Now we could put marks on all the ASI, but that would take more work, make download larger, and rquire more texture memory.

So we are realy down to a few choices.

1. Autoretract, and not let them deploy.

2. Play a sound and snap them off.  

To me the auto retract is the most acceptible.

Because it gives us a simple cutoff line (flight manual speed limits) and it isn't a nuisance realism because we do not damage them when you just cross a line. And finaly It dosn't reqire a randomizer.

[MANDO]

For those of you looking for more realism in P38, start asking for a 15 mins limit for MIL power. Far more important than flaps, isnt it?

About random failures, they would certainly add realism. But we pay to PLAY and we play for sort periods of time, we dont play to waste 15 mins of our very valuable free time just to end up with a random engine failure (and doesnt matter the low frequency of faillures). On the other hand, that would be a "nice" feature to have in some scenaries. And yes, puffy ack acts actually like random critical failures.

[Lye-El]

Ki-84 has Fowler flaps also,  I don't want to have to get my speed under 150 to get them to deploy so could we get the deployment limits bumped up another 80 mph or so....

It's just such a disadavantage the way it is and I'm sure some Japanese pilot somewhere deployed them faster than that at sometime

[Murdr]

My first sentence in the thread btw was: "OIO, not that this dead horse hasnt been beaten enough, but... "

[OIO]

Originally posted by hitech


Because it gives us a simple cutoff line (flight manual speed limits) and it isn't a nuisance realism because we do not damage them when you just cross a line.

...  its not nuisance realism to make a plane spin during a low speed high-g fight and practically guarantee it getting shot down because they 'just crossed a line' when the real plane didnt suffer from that (spins due to autoretraction)? at all?.

Originally posted by hitech

"2. Each system is looked at as to how it effects enjoyment vs how it effects realism."

it seems to me the system affects only 1 plane and not others. A success by all standards unless you happen to be flying that 1 plane. Thats me. And my enjoyment is seriously affected.

The current system models something that the real 38 didnt do and sadly it models it at the very speeds the 38 will reach for mere moments when it 'crosses the line' and spins thanks to it.

HTC changed the flight model a ways back because data was shown to them that it was incorrect. Data shows that the 38s flaps did not retract on their own or by wind. The autoretract is a gameplay feature as far as the 38 is concerned.

If its gameplay feature then please give me the option of not using it. Or adjust the current gameplay feature so that it does not cripple my plane in the very situations where its relying on flaps.

You said every request comes down to modifying the current set limits. You say the other option is ripping them off.

Ripping them off would penalize all airplanes equally.. but if that one is put in place you wouldnt have just me whining to high heaven, youd have everyone here

One system penalizes 1 plane, the other system penalizes all planes. imo it seems less painful (and easier to do) to adjust the current system so that the 1 affected plane is not penalized and have those adjustments affect ALL planes...they werent affected before by it and they wont be affected by it after the adjustment.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by OIO

I still want my P38 autoretract speed increased.

 

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Urchin


However, I also see the other point, which is if HTC decided to change it so they didn't retract till 160 you'd have people saying "This is BS HT, my flaps autoretract if my speed touches 160 for an INSTANT and then I lose the fight!", or if they were changed so they took damage it'd be "this is BS HT, my flaps got damaged because my speed went over 160 for a SECOND, in REAL LIFE flaps didn't break just because you went 5 mph over the "RECOMMENDED LIMIT" (NOTE RECOMMENDED), it needs to be changed!"

Edited for broken english lol

We're not asking for the auto-retract speed to increase, we're asking it be taken out and replaced by a system that would model the damage from over-speeding.  So in your example, instead of the flaps auto-retracting at a higher speed, the pilot instead would face the possibility that his flaps would jam.

ack-ack

[Karnak]

OIO,

Why do you think it only affects one plane?  That is a silly, nonsensical thought.


As to the "real" plane, well, a "real" pilot wouldn't try to follow a Zero though a Split S using his flaps.

Learn to fly within the limits of your chosen aircraft.  Do you see me in here whining every time I overspeed and rip the flight surfaces off of my Mossie?  That only affects two or so aircraft and is absolutely fatal.  So what?  I should have watched my speed better.