What happened to LW?

[MiloMorai]

Manual, in German, for the 109E

http://www.bf109.com/acrobat/bf109elowgerman.pdf

includes a diagram of the rim and flap wheels.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Bruno
Imagine that Spit XVI with 25lbs boost (it runs 18 max now).

Hmm, a +25 lbs IX or XVI would have almost exactly the same performance as the G-14, mph for mph, fpm for fpm. Perhaps the G-14 is a bit faster, the XVI climbs a little better on high boost, but that's all.

[ghi]

Originally posted by Mime
listen to me for a sec

 In the past 2 years or so it seems like all the allied planes have been increasingly made easier to fly (incredible almost anti gravity, turn radius increasing, little drag flaps and cockpits with very little obstructions) while axis planes (specifically the LW fleet)  have only become worse.  

 
    Sad but true.  I was expecting the TOD, cuz the MA is kind of childish, but looks like LW is porked worst after this patch,
I wouldn't be surprised to see the P51  outruning the Me262 after next patch.

[Waffle]

Sounds pretty clear from this post back on page one...lol


Think it's like the hypochnondriac who pulls a muscle in the back....friend says "so and so had a back pain...turned out to be his/her heart had a problem...."

Next thing you know - the hypochondriac is at ER screaming they're dying because they think their having a heart attack.. from psyching themselves up to believe in something that ain't there.

Originally posted by hitech

Finaly It always amazes me, how people clame things changed, with the 109s this version none of there performance changed. The 109k4 perfomes exatly like the 109G10 did.

The F190D9 has not changed since 2.00 was released.
HiTech

[Karnak]

Well, that and the Mk XVI out rolls and out turns the Bf109G-14.  Put it on +25lbs boost and it'll out climb it and out run it too.  Right now it out climbs, out rolls and out turns the Bf109G-14.

Frankly I am just not good enough in the Bf109s to know what to do about a Mk XVI that is above me and I ran into that situation last night.


As to the cockpits, I think it is pretty clear that the Spitfire's cockpit at least is overly generous in the view.

Here is a photo Charge posted recently of a Spitfire's cockpit:

And here is an in game shot of a Spitfire's cockpit, cropped to about the same width:


I would be interested in seeing such a comparison for other fighters as well, particularly the P-51D.

[Bruno]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Hmm, a +25 lbs IX or XVI would have almost exactly the same performance as the G-14, mph for mph, fpm for fpm. Perhaps the G-14 is a bit faster, the XVI climbs a little better on high boost, but that's all.

I know that, but you don't understand the nature of some of the people that play AH. They are already complaining about how the Spit XVI is 'too good' at 18lbs. It's not about facts, it's about perceptions. If the rumor gets out that XXX plane is porked, or that XXX planes is 'over modeled' then it will get repeated and eventually screamed from the mountain top, facts be damned.

HT himself said:

Finaly It always amazes me, how people clame things changed, with the 109s this version none of there performance changed. The 109k4 perfomes exatly like the 109G10 did.

All the test I have done confirm this, yet you will see any number folks running about claiming that HTC has 'neutered' or 'porked' all LW planes.

It's just silly...

[Glasses]

I've had no problems with the SpitXVI so far, maybe it could be that those that'd be flying the XVI do not come into the LCD(Least Common denominator) class of pilots  so it has been a handful but not so much that they become unmaneageable.

I do agree with Nath thoguh there is something awkward about the snap roll in the Spit series,since at the treshold of the 190's best roll rate I've had Spitfires keep up with me in excessive turn rolls.

[Karnak]

Well as a newbie Bf109 pilot flying the Bf109G-14, running into Morpheus in a Spitfire Mk XVI  was a bad thing.  Very, very bad.

If you have any tips I'd love to hear them Glasses.

[Waffle]

as far as windsheild / canopies go:





you can see how cramped the 109 is as compared to the 51

I'll see if I can dig some spit / 190 stuff up.

[storch]

from my perspective, irrespective of HTC assurance that the FMs haven't been altered in any way the fact remains that the 109K-4 does not appear to be anywhere near as fast as the 109G-10 was and it's climb rate has been seriously degraded.  so much so that a co-alt co-E P40-E had no problem staying with me in a spiral climb during a lenghty 1 v 1 encounter in the CT last night.  The opposing player was one that is considerably less able than myself, judging from past encounters.  I would point out that HTC had previously assured us that the FM in the 190 had not been altered yet the tendency to depart in a moderately high AoA bank disaapeared after 2.04.  The bf110 now departs into an usually unrecoverable flat spin with even slight rudder input while turning.  This is something that didn't occur prior to 2.06.  I'm sure other 110 players are experiencing the same issue.  certainly my squadmates in the MA have had this experience as the 110 is our principle ride and it sees heavy use in the MA and CT by us.  I can't comment on allied aircraft because of how seldomly I play in them but regarding the German aircraft, which I utilize almost exclusively this version of the game is a flop and unpleasant to play.

[Crumpp]

Perk the 110!!

It's the best dogfighter the Luftwaffe has in Aces High.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Wilbus]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Perk the 110!!

It's the best dogfighter the Luftwaffe has in Aces High.

All the best,

Crumpp

Now that is damn true though.

[Krusty]

"Flaps are another red herring. As Kurfürst said flaps will just bled your energy faster"

Not in AH they don't!! In AH the flaps are modeled to = turning uberness. So, for AH reasons, flaps are NOT a red herring. WHen they are "fixed" they will be, but effectively? They're the second most important "easy mode" feature in the game.

Storch I have a theory on this...

They have a data set. Whatever the format is, it says "in these circumstances, the plane does this, at this speed, with this lift" etc. With me so far? Okay, so what if the data set hasn't changed one iota? What if the code that computes the data set is porked? Or what if the thing that reads what the current circumstances are (then applies the data to it) isn't set up properly?

My theory is that HT claims this because the data has not changed, but the REST of the code around it has. Pure speculation, of course, but it's an undeniable fact to those that have flown them that the following changes have taken place.

1.x -> 2.0 190 stall characteristics greatly improved
1.x -> 2.0 109 roll rates and manuverability greatly improved
2.05 -> 2.06 109 roll rates greatly reduced for E and K, F at low speeds
2.05 -> 2.06 G10 (now K4) cannot make simple moves without popping slats

[Crumpp]

I will put the challenge out to anyone.  They fly the FW-190A5 and I will take a Spitfire Mk Vb.  We start the fight co-alt and I will own them in that Spitfire.

I will fly around on your 6 until I get bored and kill you.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Grits]

Originally posted by storch
from my perspective, irrespective of HTC assurance that the FMs haven't been altered in any way the fact remains that the 109K-4 does not appear to be anywhere near as fast as the 109G-10 was and it's climb rate has been seriously degraded.

Appearances can be deceiving. Test them back to back like I did and you will see:

A. K-4 is identical in performance to G-10 in all respects. It is NOT slower, it does NOT climb less well, I tested them, I know for certain I dont just "feel" it to be so.

B. 190's, other than the drag from the rack of you took a bomb or DT were identical in performance. I tested the 190's last time a change was "felt" and it too proved to be false. I know, I tested them.

This is a good example of why you can not put too much stock in anecdotes from even real Ace pilots accounts unless backed up with test data. Humans, in all of their sensory perception are good at feeling relative changes in state, but not absolute values.

Do this experiment to see what I mean. Fill a glass with tap water, and put your finger in it to feel the temperature. Now run your fingers under the hottest water you can stand for a few seconds, then feel the water in the glass again. It feels colder than the first time. Now put your fingers in ice water for a few seconds and feel the water a third time. This time it feels hot.

The water did not change temperature, only your REALATIVE sense of its temperature changed. The same thing happens with these claims of FM changes, folks "feel" they are changed, yet they are not, only the circumstances of the particular moment are different.