Why Porking the LW does NOT make HTC $$

[Krusty]

I rarely use CT, especially on 109s. That doesn't affect the "flop" problem.

[JAWS2003]

Originally posted by Mustaine
i made a sarcastic comment earlier, part in jest, part in please let this all die, why keep ruffling feathers, whatever...

here is my serious take on the whole thing. seeing as the man who got me into the game, and generally started my flight sim carrer posted comments that are somewhat critical.

HiTech and Pyro have been modeling flight soms for how long? 10, 15 years? my guess is they have researched more than we can imagine in that time. i also assume they have poured alot of hours and money into obtaining and analizing data. have they seen or had translated every piece out there on every plane? i don't think it is possible.

HTC is a smaller company, and does not have the resources available to them that say the US air force has, so there will always be a percieved "lack" of data to support everything they create.

whatever they program, they would be foolish to just post or make available in some way ALL their findings, and data that supports it. why give out those years of work for free? just because i say bah i don't believe you, prove it, they should not have to bow to my wishes. if HTC were to make available free their entire archive, what is to stop someone from "borrowing" it for their own uses, without permission, and without cost.

i would hazard a guess they have data none of us have seen here. data on every plane they have modeled. i have this image of a file room at the HTC office, full wall to wall with bookshelves filled with reports, filght manuals, and other data. heck even at their houses i bet there's stuff. 15 years of researching a topic lends to having alot of things to sift through. add to that new data posted here, that they have to find. what i mean is, sure a page from a book may be scanned then posted. HTC can't very well base assumptions on just they. they must find the book, and get rights to the data to use and archive it i am guessing.

now take all that, and make a performance chart. when you have 2 documents that contradict each other, what do you do? believe just the "good" one? no you end up looking for another thing that backs up one or the other original finding. then you find another, and another, so on.

i could be wrong here, but imagine there is a spectrum from uber to sucky for each plane. there is something HTC actually owns that proves each point. where do you make the performance line go? personally i would take all the data, then use the average of all of it, good and bad.

in reality i think that is the best anyone could do. cold hard facts are rare in the world.

think of it this way. the only way to get accurate flight model data is to travel back in time, and run exacting tests of just what you need on the actual planes piloted by the best pilots of that plane. even if you did that, i bet you could get 3 different results from 3 "exact" planes. look at skuzzy's anecdote. 2 pilots, same plane. 1 crashes, 1 makes it. yes pilot skill comes into play, but also, maybe that plane that crashed just didn't hold together as well as the other.


so what have i concluded about all of this? i think HTC has taken the information they have available, and done the best they can with it. you have the right to not agree, but not the right to claim they are lying about something. yes people lie, but unless HTC as a company are just compulsive voss like liars, what would they have to gain?

well take it for what it's worth. thats just my thoughts on this. oh and 42, bro, i see your side, i also see the other, and just thought i'd say what i thought after all these years.

What puzles me is that after so many years of experience, In the latest version of the game the BF-110 is be the best German WW2 dogfighter and the Ta-152 is the worst .
 This bothers me.

[wetrat]

Combat trim is fine in 109's; the only time I trim anything manually is at high speeds, when you need to trim to get any kind of elevator authority. Other than that, I leave it on. It requires a certain touch to keep them from flopping around, but once you figure it out, it's not difficult at all. I have absolutely no trouble with snaprolls at all, and I routinely fight with it under 200mph. And you can't say that I'm not well versed in the ways of the 109... I should hit 800 kills in the K4 if I fly tonight.

"Me 109 G:
"It was very advanced and equipped with new, more sophisticated technology. Nicknamed Gustav, the 109G was well armed, but not as light as the early E and F versions. Its more powerful engine meant higher power settings whose initial climb rate sent it soaring to 18700 feet in six minutes, but at low speed the plane was difficult to handle."
- Major Gunther Rall in April 1943. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Gunther Rall, a memoir."

[Krusty]

No doubt he's talking torque. Same thing with the F4u... which in this game has almost no torque... hrm... Nope... the 109s are just "broken" in this game. Other planes that had high torque have no torque handling effects, only the 109s... so if that's the problem the 109s need to be modeled to the same standards as the rest of the game, not with their own set

[hitech]

Krusty: Torque is modeled very accuratly in the game. People tend to think torque is what cause the f4u to flip, it wasn't the primary force.


HiTech

[storch]

Originally posted by JAWS2003
What puzles me is that after so many years of experience, In the latest version of the game the BF-110 is be the best German WW2 dogfighter and the Ta-152 is the worst .
 This bothers me.

oh hush you luftwhiner!!!! there you go making sense again.  sheesh, the nerve of some people.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by JAWS2003
What puzles me is that after so many years of experience, In the latest version of the game the BF-110 is be the best German WW2 dogfighter and the Ta-152 is the worst .
 This bothers me.

Perhaps because "dogfighting" ability was not a principle design consideration for German engineers, yet our Main Arena environment disproportionately favors planes with strong dogfighting abilities.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[B@tfinkV]

Originally posted by parin
Without combat trim the G-14 and K-4 can be flown fairly slow and stable, it is more work to fly trimming manually. I believe combat trim does not do a good job of trimimg these planes out for slow speed flight.

i am in agreement.

[JAWS2003]

I wasn't referring to plain flat turn fight. I was talking about "dog fighting" in general. Close in air combat.
 But what do you think, should the big clumsy BF-110 be better at this than  BF-109 or FW-190?

[parin]

Originally posted by hitech
People tend to think torque is what cause the f4u to flip, it wasn't the primary force.


HiTech

Would that be P-factor & Slip stream? And do you model that?

[Dead Man Flying]

Big, clumsy 110?  190 and 109?  I thought this was about the Ta152 vs. the 110?  Stop changing the subject and loading your questions.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[B@tfinkV]

Originally posted by JAWS2003
I wasn't referring to plain flat turn fight. I was talking about "dog fighting" in general. Close in air combat.
 But what do you think, should the big clumsy BF-110 be better at this than  BF-109 or FW-190?

i dont think anyone is suggesting the 110 is better than the 190 or 109.



if you're basing these facts on score cards, think again.

with equal pilot, the 109E will destroy any model 110.  the 190 is far beyond that.


dont confuse planes that are used consistantly for vulching, base capture and porking as being 'good allround dogfighters'.





PS: leviathn, i think you telling people not to 'load' questions is a little rich

[Kurt]

Originally posted by hitech
Ill state it as plainly as I can.

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

HiTech

I don't think you tweek by country, but I would like to ask a question...

I often hear and read quotes stating that the FW190-A was able to consistantly out turn and generally out perform the Spitfire V at lower altitudes.  (Most recently on History Channel 'Century of Warfare: Air war 1943-45')

I have also seen remarks in books and on the internet that say that the constant improvements to the Spitfire were a direct result of being out-performed by the 190's.  And that up until the Spit IX, the spitfire was not competitive with the 190.

Contrast that with AH where the FW190-A5 clearly the best turning 190 in the game has virtually no chance of holding on to a spitfire V in any mode of flight (excluding final approach to landing).

Mustang Pilots comment often about the 190-D models turning right along with them and really being a chore to deal with.  Not just rocketing in with no ability to turn like we see them in AH.  The Dora is a very severe task-master in AHII (although far improved from AHI).

Why is there so much documentation out there to support these aircraft being often superior at best, and at worst, equal to the Allied aircraft and yet the AH planes are practically unmanagable.  The P51 flies like a dream in AH, and so to all of the spitfires, but every single Fw190 and bf109 requires very cautious control.

It just seems like a disconnect.

[B@tfinkV]

you're just so wrong it untrue kurt.


first off, the 190A did out peform the spitfiremk5 in all aspects EXCEPT radius of turn.



Secondly, a 190D will turn with a P51, you just have to know how to fly it.
How many real pilot in WW2 do you think would spend the majority of their time fighting with the throttle fully open?


thirdly, the 190 A5 'flies like a dream' too.



And finally, the Luftwaffe pilots in WW2, being of considerably more experience and skill than the vast majority of allied pilot, knew how to fly their planes to its advantage. You quite simply need to go and do some training before you continue with these statement.



Film of 2 190A5s being bounce by 2 higher hurricane 2c: http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/2190VS2hurriC.ahf

this isnt even an example of great flying, just simply working your advantages.

quite clearly the 190 out performs in every aspect except radius of turn.




learn to fly better/smarter.

[bozon]

Originally posted by JAWS2003
I wasn't referring to plain flat turn fight. I was talking about "dog fighting" in general. Close in air combat.
 But what do you think, should the big clumsy BF-110 be better at this than  BF-109 or FW-190?

If you are refering to high altitude ETO battles, the most valuble manuver was "split S and dive for the clouds". Not so heroic but very effective. 190s were best at it for a while and that's why they were considered harder to shoot down than 109s (from the books I read at least). What could the 110 offer? big target that rolls slowly and not very fast, who cares about stall or turn?. Real life promoted the dweebiest flying, by elimination.

Turn, acceleration, climbrate were all nice to have compared with fast roll and dive ability. At low altitudes that is another story. I think that in the low alt russian front, 109s were more successful than 190s for that reason. That is the impression I got at least.

Bozon