Perking the TA152

[Krusty]

Well, stop calling for the unperking of the Ta152!

Rather, call out for the FIXING of the Ta152 to be WORTH its perks!

[Kurt]

Wow..

All you gotta do is read a thread like this and you can understand in one brief moment just how much the people you fly with EVERY DAY don't understand the role of this plane vs that other plane.

Gads...

It's scary that 80% of the people in this game only understand 4 of the available rides.

Anyhow, all that aside... Due to the altitude that things in AH occur, I agree, perking the TA152 is a little silly.  By that rationale, most of the P38's should be perked..

[Zazen13]

Originally posted by Kurt
Wow..

All you gotta do is read a thread like this and you can understand in one brief moment just how much the people you fly with EVERY DAY don't understand the role of this plane vs that other plane.

Gads...

It's scary that 80% of the people in this game only understand 4 of the available rides.

Anyhow, all that aside... Due to the altitude that things in AH occur, I agree, perking the TA152 is a little silly.  By that rationale, most of the P38's should be perked..

For some reason there has always been a perk bias against planes that perform best at altitudes where no fights occur. This is even so if planes, like the Ta152, perform poorly even when compared to un-perked rides at altitudes where 99% of the fights do occur (below 15k). Conversely, planes that perform like doggy doo-doo where fights do not occur (above 15k), but perform exceptionally well where fights do occur (below 15k), much better than most of the perked planes, are left un-perked.

I can't explain this. I suppose some of the perked/un-perked issues could be hold-overs from the inception of AH when the plane-set was far more limited, but even so it doesn't make alot of sense. It's obvious from the amount of fiddling with ENY values and perk costs HTC agrees there is some room for improvement on this issue. I just hope they continue to pro-actively view the Post-Camp Fighter Stats and make adjustments where necessary, they have in the past, so there is no reason to believe they will not continue to do so.

Zazen

[DREDIOCK]

The only way to fly the 152 is B&Z.
In a fight you can make 1 decent turn in it but thats it.
You try a second turn right after the first turn and unless the person your going against it totally inexperianced you just signed your own death warrant.

Even at high alt in a co alt fight it isnt what I would call manuverable.

[Wilbus]

Originally posted by Kurt
Wow..

All you gotta do is read a thread like this and you can understand in one brief moment just how much the people you fly with EVERY DAY don't understand the role of this plane vs that other plane.

Gads...

It's scary that 80% of the people in this game only understand 4 of the available rides.

Anyhow, all that aside... Due to the altitude that things in AH occur, I agree, perking the TA152 is a little silly.  By that rationale, most of the P38's should be perked..

Kurt, Posted this above a few days back:

The Ta 152 was not designed as a high altitude bomber interceptor, that is a common misstake to think.    It was designed as a high-altitude long range air superiority fighter designed for many different roles such as, long range escorts, furballing, recce (H10 was recce version) aswell as bomber interceptor.    Another common misstake is to think that is served as a 262 airfield protection plane, it didn't.    Third is that just because it was maximized for high alt everybody seems to think it sucked down low (think AH has a part in that). It was quite capable, more so then the 190's at all alts.    The more dedictaed buff hunters would have been the A and B modells, which were both heavily armed.

Yes the Jumo 213E was maximized for extreme altitude performance but the engine delivered lots of power down low aswell, specially with the MW50 injection.

All the action that was seen by the Ta 152's during the war took place at low altitude against greater odds every time and yet they lost two planes only.

Hell they even had to fight a squadron of 1 late war 109's because the 109's didn't recognise them. (they didn't shoot back nor did they lose any planes to the 109's, they outclimbed them).

To think the Ta 152 is purly a high altitude plane is to think wrong and that is a misstake many many people do.

[Kurt]

Originally posted by Wilbus

Yes the Jumo 213E was maximized for extreme altitude performance but the engine delivered lots of power down low aswell, specially with the MW50 injection.

All the action that was seen by the Ta 152's during the war took place at low altitude against greater odds every time and yet they lost two planes only.

Hell they even had to fight a squadron of 1 late war 109's because the 109's didn't recognise them. (they didn't shoot back nor did they lose any planes to the 109's, they outclimbed them).

To think the Ta 152 is purly a high altitude plane is to think wrong and that is a misstake many many people do.

Well, Wilbus, let me get a little more concise on my remark which you were responding to...

You're talking about bonafide WWII numbers and results... Like it or not, they don't mean very much in some AH cases.  I'm not talking about your understanding (or anyone elses) of what planes did in real life.  I'm talking about what planes do in AH.

The role of a fighter in AH is defined by how it is actually used in the game.  Don't let reality cloud your vision.  In real life, the 190's and 109's were reported to easily turn with Spitfires... But in AH turning those FW birds is like trying to turn a locomotive... Reality simply doesn't apply here.

The role that the TA152 fits in AH is very narrow.  So narrow that any other perk plane and almost all of the non-perk planes can smack the crud out of it 6 days out of 7.   Nothing with that narrow of scope should be a perk.

If you unperk it, it's not as if you're going to see a sky full of TA152's.  It's a great plane for specific missions, Special events and such.  But in the MA its mostly a hanger queen.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Kurt
The role of a fighter in AH is defined by how it is actually used in the game.  Don't let reality cloud your vision.  In real life, the 190's and 109's were reported to easily turn with Spitfires... But in AH turning those FW birds is like trying to turn a locomotive... Reality simply doesn't apply here.

But you're applying artificial titles on planes because they are not modeled properly. Rather than say "The Fw 190 is not a fighter in AH" you ought to say "The AH 190 is not modeled properly, and as such can not be flown as it was historically."

[Kurt]

Originally posted by Krusty
Rather than say "The Fw 190 is not a fighter in AH" you ought to say "The AH 190 is not modeled properly, and as such can not be flown as it was historically."

Thats exactly what I did say, so much so that I'm not sure why you felt the need to reword it for me.... The modles in AH aren't reality, and you can't apply real-world expectations to them...  Titles are nothing more than words.

[Krusty]

You were limiting the capabilities of the plane based on what this particular flight sim does, rather than stating that the abilities of the planes are not modeled properly. There is a subtle difference. I was merely pointing that out

[Kurt]

Originally posted by Krusty
You were limiting the capabilities of the plane based on what this particular flight sim does, rather than stating that the abilities of the planes are not modeled properly. There is a subtle difference. I was merely pointing that out

I figured the inaccuracies in the flight models are well known and understood and didn't require explicit comment.

[Kev367th]

Theres two big problems -

1) For even approaching 100% accuracy requires more code than I think is even close to worth it for any game.

2) To run it you'd have to be prepared to spend $100,000's on a super computer.

Why do you think Boeing or Airbus doesn't run their sims on home Pc's?

[Krusty]

Kev, at some point you pass the point of diminishing returns. The difference between 99% and 100% accurate might be $10,000 and $100,000 respectively.

What AH has isn't even 2 percent. It's got climb and top speed, and that's the 2%! All the other 98 points about the plane are completely screwed up.

Hell I'd settle for 10%... Okay maybe 20%... Most other AH planes are in the range of 40-50% accurate I'd say (not counting gunnery, just flight).

That's not too much to ask.

[Grits]

The Ta152 is the least expensive perk ride now, even less than the Chog. Last night it was only 4 perks while the Chog was 10. I wont fly it even if it is free, with the P-47N you have a free plane that does what the 152 does at high alt, only better.

[Kev367th]

Agreed Krusty -

Point is there only so much you can get from graphs etc.
The only true test is if a former pilot of the plane in question tries it on a sim. Even then as you say, there comes a point where it's just not worth it anymore.

E.g -
I have a Gazelle I sometimes fly in FS2004, everything on the surface seems right. They got their data from graphs and flight tests.
One thing you can't reproduce is a main rotor jack stall, its just not part of the usual data gathered.

I can't honestly say how accurate any plane in AH2 is, all seem to suffer from one or another problem.

Consider yourself lucky -
Both the US and LW are heavily (over 60%+) biased to 1944/45.
Us poor RAF fans make do with around half that, and 2 out the 3 are perked, the other is at 1943 performance levels. We haven't even got a 1945 plane.

[Kurt]

Ok, so now we've reached the point where one of you has flown a TA152, or for that matter any of the planes in this game and knows what is 2% and what is 50%?

Come on... Any minute now, HiTech is going to pop in and utter my most favorite line... "If you can write a better Massive online flight sim, go do it."