Author Topic: Why Porking the LW does NOT make HTC $$ (Read 3964 times)

NoBaddy · « **Reply #30 on:** February 17, 2006, 03:51:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Yeah ... now that I'm trying to fly w/o tracers I pulled conv down to 300 and shoot much closer in. When I hit something with a solid burst from the La-5 it usually doesn't last long after that.

Dok...

I, generally, don't start shooting until I figure I'm at 300 or less. I have my convergence set at 275. I had tracers off until recently. I found all of the crap associated with them to be a major distraction. I turned 'em back on when I took up buff hunting as a hobby. I wanted to watch film and see where dem bullets was going.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #31 on:** February 17, 2006, 04:42:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NoBaddy
I, generally, don't start shooting until I figure I'm at 300 or less. I have my convergence set at 275. I had tracers off until recently. I found all of the crap associated with them to be a major distraction. I turned 'em back on when I took up buff hunting as a hobby. I wanted to watch film and see where dem bullets was going.

Tracers tell the buff driver that he's being fired at and from where - just like anything else. I started taking a lot fewer gunner hits and got a lot more undefended passes once I turned tracers off.

As for the LW planes, I personally have far fewer issues with the performance numbers than with the handling characteristics. All of which have been discussed elsewhere.

Charge · « **Reply #32 on:** February 17, 2006, 05:19:54 PM »

"but the fun in flying the LW rides comes from them being a challenge"

Ps. Simaril, I really wonder why this kind of thread has no been locked already, and even more I wonder why you started it. You being pissed of something somebody said in textbuffer is not a very good reason. I think it's just harmful propaganda, and aimed at certain people you consider as your opposition. Just as Mathman's post. Harassment.

-C+

Apar · « **Reply #33 on:** February 17, 2006, 05:22:59 PM »

In Track Mania Nations the German rides do pretty well too

(and the graphics are awsome!!)

Fix the 109 flaps and the 190 snap roll!!!!

(then i'll might renew my AH account)

Angus · « **Reply #34 on:** February 17, 2006, 05:34:54 PM »

My 5 cents....
HTC does the modelling as well as they can, - that relies on backed-up information and such.

I don't know what it is with this slice of the LW crowd (well, I am a kinda LW geek myself actually), - but sometimes I think people go mad from LW-geeking.
I mean, scream out loud "we don't have the BEST 109/190", or "our 109/190" aren't modelled completely correctly according to this&that yadayadayada...........It still doesn't change the fact that we don't have the ultimate P51/Spit/Mossie etc etc either!
The modelling is always under HTC's looking-eye, they accept information from documents, they are testing, looking for feedbacks, and thereby reading through many a bloody silly thread.
But allied-biased in their programming...well, if anything, they are biased for the USSR, hehehehehe......

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #35 on:** February 17, 2006, 05:51:39 PM »

Angus, I think there are two sets of issues being raised with the LW planes. One is what you suggest - that the version ain't the best, that it should faster, etc. etc. etc.

The other camp is looking at the bizarre snap-spin, the low-speed wallowing, and the drop-right-out-of-the-sky stalls which don't seem to affect any other planes. These, IMNHO, are at least as important as the actual performance numbers because they govern just how much of that flight envelope you can actually get at and use. And they're harder to figure out too because your dealing with dynamic effects and how these map to impressions pilots had flying these planes sixty years ago.

Honestly, I have so much faith in HT getting the performance numbers as close to right as anyone can I don't even bother jumping into those arguments. Pyro said the 109 flaps were an oversight and those will come out I'm sure in an impending revision. But the other stuff - that remains unresolved and very, very frustrating to people who want to fly LW planes without having to relearn the game to do so.

Angus · « **Reply #36 on:** February 17, 2006, 06:06:04 PM »

The 190 snaps in a high-G strall. Ok?
It doesn't run from a La-7 or a P51...yet (there will probably be more 190's)..ok?
The 109 does not turn with a Spitfire...ok?
The 109 from 1943 cannot run from a La or P51 from 1945, - ok?
I mean, I don't see anything big.
And the low speed wallowing, - huh? Well, with the flaps corrected the 109 will be very competible at lower speeds for instance. The 190 was never famous for low-speed maneuvers, so what's the problem?
The only big thing I can see about the LW rides is the FM of the 110......

wetrat · « **Reply #37 on:** February 17, 2006, 07:33:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by E25280
IMO, this is exactly the problem and the cause of the constant complaints and ultimately the "conspiracy theories".

From posts like this and others I've seen, it seems to be common knowledge / accepted fact that there are KNOWN problems with AT LEAST a few LW planes. These problems have been out there for a while with requests to have them fixed.

And they remain unfixed.
And they still remain unfixed.
And they remain unfixed AGAIN.
And so on . . .

So eventually someone gets it in their head that there must be a REASON the known problem remains unfixed. I know enough to know that I don't know anything about programming (did that make sense??), therefore I personally give the designers the benefit of the doubt and say, "Geez, it must be a big deal to make even little fixes, they will get to it eventually."

A less forgiving (or perhaps more programming knowledgeable?) person may instead come to the conclusion "it is such a small fix, they must WANT the LW to be wrong". Then insert favorite conspiracy theory here.

Like most conspiracy theories, they may tend toward the loopy (intentionally messing up your flight model makes you MORE money?? WHA?), but I can at least see why they got started in the first place.

I have some knowledge of programming, and flap deployment speed for each notch of flaps is most likely a variable. That is to say, if "x" was the first notch of flaps in a K4, then "x = 170". If I'm correct in this, then it doesn't seem like too arduous a task to fix this problem.

NoBaddy · « **Reply #38 on:** February 17, 2006, 07:51:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Tracers tell the buff driver that he's being fired at and from where - just like anything else. I started taking a lot fewer gunner hits and got a lot more undefended passes once I turned tracers off.

Dok...

Yeah, I know. But, letting them know I'm coming makes it much more fun. Heck, by the time I start on the 3rd buff in the form, they might already have figured it out.

Pooh21 · « **Reply #39 on:** February 17, 2006, 10:50:22 PM »

I never wanted to be the aliens in x-com

E25280 · « **Reply #40 on:** February 17, 2006, 11:02:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by wetrat
I have some knowledge of programming, and flap deployment speed for each notch of flaps is most likely a variable. That is to say, if "x" was the first notch of flaps in a K4, then "x = 170". If I'm correct in this, then it doesn't seem like too arduous a task to fix this problem.

With my (non)knowledge, I would assume it would be the same simple fix too. So, you get the nice buzzing sound and the graphics change at 170mph. But, the part I don't know and wouldn't dare speculate on is how many other changes you would need in the code that actually describe the flight model.

Right now we have a set of programming that describes how the plane handles. So, flying at 160 in a 109 means certain things at certain pitch, roll, yaw, throttle, etc. If you change the flap deployment so that flaps are available at 160, you now may have to code a different set of characteristics for a 109 with one notch of flap at all angles of pitch, roll, throttle, etc. Now do the same thing at 155 with one notch, or 150 with one notch AND two notches, etc. And that would be without stick input. How many tens or hundreds of different stick inputs could there be, all with a different outcome at each different speed when there either IS or ISN'T a notch of flaps extended? Suddenly, it doesn't seem like quite so simple a change to me.

Like I said, I don't pretend to know anything about that level of programming and I could be way over-complicating it. But on the other hand, if it was as simple as changing "x=120" to "x=170", then I have to believe it would have been fixed a LONG time ago given it is an admitted problem.

Brooke · « **Reply #41 on:** February 17, 2006, 11:09:44 PM »

I've flown in and against 109's in scenarios modelling earlier parts of WWII. There, in my opinion, the 109E is better than the Spit I and Hurricanes and the 109F better than the Spit V and Hurricanes.

Overall (not just any particular time period and in the MA, too), I think the 110G is quite good.

I haven't flown 190's much at all, but I've flown against them a lot, and the D's seem decent.

DrDea · « **Reply #42 on:** February 17, 2006, 11:34:48 PM »

Deleted

DrDea · « **Reply #43 on:** February 17, 2006, 11:35:57 PM »

So there.

jaxxo · « **Reply #44 on:** February 18, 2006, 12:22:46 AM »

k4 is very uber..just not in a newbs hands..i fly spit 16s cuz i inititiate fights and regularly fly low and outnumbered,,the spit allows me to do this and get a few killz that the k4 cannot...flying a dora/pony/k4/ and having "SA" you can land killz all day..i just find it boring..it all depends what u like to do..have fun and quit the whining..according to history the k4 and the spit 16 are both porked