Author Topic: Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release (Read 10743 times)

justin_g · « **Reply #105 on:** February 17, 2006, 08:22:16 AM »

I took the original statement to mean that the aircraft would rotate around its longitudinal axis on take-off(with the gear still on the ground). Timras quotes are all for landing/go-arounds - in this case I'm not arguing. But I find it very hard to believe that torque could flip the aircraft over the roll axis if its still on the ground. The wing would stop the motion when it hit the ground, I can't see a 12,000lb Corsair being lifted & pivoting over ~20ft of wing to land on its back.

Wilbus · « **Reply #106 on:** February 17, 2006, 08:28:48 AM »

Read it again please.

it happened, both to F4u's and A1 Skyraiders. If you firewall it there is no way the plane will remain on its wheels specially not unharmed.

Quote

One "vice" plagued the Corsair throughout its production run. At low speeds, the huge R2800 engine produced huge amounts of torque. If an inexperience pilot jammed the throttle to the firewall on takeoff, the torque could easily twist the airplane onto its back and "ruin the pilot's afternoon." This tendency earned the Corsair the nickname "Ensign Eliminator." Experienced pilots said the F4U was no more challenging to fly than any other high-performance fighter then in service.

That is just one snip I dug up on the internet. The place is full of similair texts and I've heard it lots before, both on TV interviewing pilots aswell as reading it.

Simaril · « **Reply #107 on:** February 17, 2006, 08:47:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Glasses
...snip...
Yeah and they know it'll remain the same,cus LW sucking =$$$$$
...snip...

This nonsense claim is driving me nuts.

Several LW proponents routinely claim that HTC deliberately porks LW because US customers wouldnt play if the LW were as "good as it was supposed to be."

That idea is 100% without basis in fact.

One. When I work with newbs, they often ask "whats the best plane?" Obviously there's no simple answer to that, but the implication is obvious: they want to know what plane gives them the best chance of success as a beginner. They dont care if I tell them the Soviet La-7 for speed, or the British Spit VIII for turning, the Japanese Nik for maneuverability+firepower, or the US P-51 for energy fighting. THEY JUST WANT WHAT WORKS, and they dont care about politics.

Two. Other VERY successful games have non- US uber weapons. Call of Duty's best gun is probably the MP-44, and the US BAR is heavy and slow. The Garand has less hitting power than it should. No one cares. CounterStrikes best guns are not US weapons. No one cares. Players want to succeed, and they want to learn each games' quirks on its own terms. Its not about nationalism playing a game, players jsut want to succeed.

Three. If anything, in the US market the WW2 German side carries a mystique that sells. For many years in the computer games press I remember reading that "nukes and Nazis" were slam dunk topics. Panzer General introduced unit quality enhancement to computer wargames, and sold like proverbial hotcakes, all from the german side. When they ported the idea to the allied side (Pacific General), the game died -- because it was stale, not because of nationalism. Steel Panthers succeeded even though it accurately modelled the overwhelming power of the 88mm AT gun, the power of the Tiger, and the wimpiness of allied armor. I could go on and on, but the point is obvious to anyone who thinks about it.

You can criticize the modelling of the LW rides if you want, but leave out the "economic driven" slander. It's absolutely 100% nonsense.

straffo · « **Reply #108 on:** February 17, 2006, 08:48:15 AM »

Anyone got the time needed for an engine to go from idle to full power ?

Dead Man Flying · « **Reply #109 on:** February 17, 2006, 09:04:52 AM »

Traditionally, air combat sims have vastly undermodelled Luftwaffe airplanes in order to sell more copies to an American audience. Take for example Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe....

-- Todd/Leviathn

Mister Fork · « **Reply #110 on:** February 17, 2006, 10:15:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Traditionally, air combat sims have vastly undermodelled Luftwaffe airplanes in order to sell more copies to an American audience. Take for example Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe....

-- Todd/Leviathn

Or the Battlefield 1942 Secret weapons addon - no one ever flies on the German side - silly buggers.

German sims don't sell. Neither did Silent Hunter, I, II, or III. And no one flies for the Luftwaffe or the German army in WWII online.

Isn't there something naughty about flying Luftwaffe anyways? Sort of like growing a goatee and playing an evil James Bond character...

hogenbor · « **Reply #111 on:** February 17, 2006, 11:14:38 AM »

I tend to agree with Simaril. Making the US planes better than they should be would not win customers. I'd sooner think it would lose them.

For me personally, I would like to see every plane modelled as authentic as possible (even if it sucks). The problem is that no one really knows what authentic is. We only have a feeling from combat accounts we read and a ton of data.

I do think that the 109 and 190s are undermodelled a bit, but on purpose? Hell no. Besides, I can't prove it. I also think that the La-7 cannot be THAT fast or that the Mossie should be sturdier and should handle better. Does this interfere with my enjoyment of the game? Hardly.

If the German planes are indeed as 'bad' as they are now I can imagine that the game is less fun for the Axis side. This will have an influence on numbers. In the war at the Axis were outnumbered, but this is a game, so some side balancing would be nice. I'd rather like to slug it out with a squad of 109's against a squad of Spits.

As for the 'dark pleasure' in flying for the virtual Luftwaffe... well, my country was overrun in four days and occupied for 5 years by Germany. I've been to Dachau, one of the death camps, now a momument. I've been to several war cemetaries, WWI, WWII, allied and German. I've seen several war museums. To see WWII hardware yes, but I never, NEVER forget what war is and what it does to people.

Still, if I had to pick a favourite fighter, it would be the 109. Politics aside, it was the underdog, yet it was built more than any other fighter. It served for three decades (in Spain). The worlds No1 ace flew it. It has more kills than any other fighter. And oh irony, it was equipped in foreign service with the engine of its greatest adversary (Buchons got Merlins). And oh irony squared, the state of Israel used Czech built 109s in combat to defend their young state.

hitech · « **Reply #112 on:** February 17, 2006, 11:42:43 AM »

Ill state it as plainly as I can.

We never have nore ever will adjusted models based on the country of origen.

HiTech

hogenbor · « **Reply #113 on:** February 17, 2006, 11:47:19 AM »

Amen!

Furball · « **Reply #114 on:** February 17, 2006, 11:48:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Traditionally, air combat sims have vastly undermodelled Luftwaffe airplanes in order to sell more copies to an American audience. Take for example Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe....

-- Todd/Leviathn

If anything German aircraft are overmodelled because in late war RL they were unreliable and poorly made by slave labour.

LW aircraft in game have been proven time and time again that in capable hands they are very competitive with allied rides, just like in real life.

Big G · « **Reply #115 on:** February 17, 2006, 12:09:09 PM »

I disagree with Superdud and Kong and some parts of Stringer...

Stringer · « **Reply #116 on:** February 17, 2006, 12:27:14 PM »

I now agree with Kong and Superdud, but completely disagree with Big G.

JAWS2003 · « **Reply #117 on:** February 17, 2006, 12:35:17 PM »

We could start with things we know and then move up bit by bit.

One problem of the BF109's and 190's is stability close to stall speed. If you check Kwessa's turn performance conclusions. you'll find out that both this aircraft are extremly unstable close to stall speed and they can't reach their advertised stall speed.

Quote

"Most of the planes are pushed to 0.05 degrees before reaching stall AoA. Some that cannot handle such high AoA (or, in real combat, would require inhuman levels of micromanagement) , are pushed to 1~1.5 degrees before stall AoA. "

They fall out of the sky way before that. I think the person that designed the game wouldn't have to much hard time pinpointing the problem. But I may be wrong.

Quote

The results are in the turn radius thread, linked at my sig. But for you, I'll compile them here for easier comparison.

Fighter Name (SL setting normal / SL one notch flaps / SL full flaps)
* fighters listed without SL settings for flaps are those that can use one setting throughout the entire testing

List of entire fighters
A6M2 (0.05)
A6M5b (0.05)
Bf109E-4 (1.0/1.1/1.2)
Bf109F-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-2 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-6 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-14 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109K-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf110C-4 (0.05)
Bf110G-2 (1.0)
C.202 (0.05)
C.205 (1.0)
F4F-4 (0.05)
FM-2 (0.05)
F4U-1 (1.0)
F4U-1D (1.0)
F4U-1C (1.0)
F4U-4 (1.0)
F6F-5 (1.0)
Fw190A-5 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190A-8 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190D-9 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190F-8 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Hurricane Mk.Ia (0.05)
Hurricane Mk.IIc (0.05)
Hurricane Mk.IId (0.05)
Ki-61-I-Tei (0.05)
Ki-84-I-Ko (0.05)
La-5FN (0.05)
La-7 (0.05)
Me163B (0.05)
Me262A (0.05)
Mosquito Mk.VI (0.05)
N1K2-J (0.05)
P-38G (0.05)
P-38J (0.05)
P-38L (0.05)
P-40B (1.0)
P-40E (1.0)
P-47D-11 (0.05)
P-47D-25 (0.05)
P-47D-40 (0.05)
P-51B (0.05)
P-51D (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.Ia (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.V (0.05)
Seafire Mk.II (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.IX (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.VIII (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.XVI (0.05)
Spitfire Mk.XIV (0.05)
Ta152H-1 (1.0)
Typhoon Mk.Ib (0.05)
Tempest Mk.V (0.05)
Yak-9T (0.05)
Yak-9U (0.05)

List of those cannot use minimal settings
Bf109E-4 (1.0/1.1/1.2)
Bf109F-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-2 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-6 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109G-14 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf109K-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2)
Bf110G-2 (1.0)
C.205 (1.0)
F4U-1 (1.0)
F4U-1D (1.0)
F4U-1C (1.0)
F4U-4 (1.0)
F6F-5 (1.0)
Fw190A-5 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190A-8 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190D-9 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
Fw190F-8 (1.0/1.5/1.5)
P-40B (1.0)
P-40E (1.0)
Ta152H-1 (1.0)

- Bf109 variants (6)
- Fw190 variants (5)
- F4U variants (4)
- Miscel. (5)

So, while 20 planes cannot use thes settings, which seems a lot, actually half of them are 109s and 190s. The only other major plane with a number of variants that cannot handle the minimal setting, is the F4U. Speaking cynically, basically our 109s and 190s are in the same league as the "Ensign Eliminator" when it comes to maneuvering stability.

Thank you Kwessa for your effort.

This is a good place to start.
Then we can look at the flaps. That can be fixed too. I saw documents here on the boards that show the maximum allowed speed for deploying flaps.

Another thing would be the loadouts. I understand the need to have historical accurate loadoutd for TOD but main arena needs all the loadouts operational used by the type. I didn't find much info of P-51D's using bombs and rockets in the same time during WW2 but in MA it should be available, since the pony could carry both and did carry them in Korea.
We can do this with BF-109's guns too. Find a way to limit the ordnance in the "ARENA SETTINGS" and let them have all the toys they were able to carry in MA.

There are other few things that have been documented here and can be checked: G-14 speed , FW-190A5 too light, and so on.
We could also look at zoom climbs of FW's but that is hard to test and the fix in 'close to stall' stability may fix this one too.

I think would be a good way to start with things we know, before moving to more complicated stuff. This would cool down the virtual LW a lot.

Toad · « **Reply #118 on:** February 17, 2006, 12:37:44 PM »

I disagree with some, agree with others, remain ambivalent towards a few but...

now that I think about it...

I actually disagree with others but agree with some; I'm still ambivalent towards a few.

I'm trying to recall, though, if I've ever heard the LW's whine about the Bf-110. Is that one undermodeled too? I mean, after all, it simply creamed the RAF in the BOB; it does well here but not nearly as well as you'd expect from it's actual, glorious combat record.

Widewing · « **Reply #119 on:** February 17, 2006, 12:41:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Simaril
Other VERY successful games have non- US uber weapons. Call of Duty's best gun is probably the MP-44, and the US BAR is heavy and slow. The Garand has less hitting power than it should. No one cares. CounterStrikes best guns are not US weapons. No one cares. Players want to succeed, and they want to learn each games' quirks on its own terms. Its not about nationalism playing a game, players jsut want to succeed.

A minor hijack...

I like the Garand in Call of Duty 2, I like it a lot. It's a fast shooting, fast reloading and very accurate. It lacks some knockdown power, but so do all the other battle rifles in the game. The MP-44 is a great choice because you hit with 2 or 3 rounds rapidly. My personal favorite is the Bren gun. The Thompson would be up there if 30 round mags were modeled, reducing reloads.

My regards,

Widewing