Author Topic: hitech 163 to gamey pls fix  (Read 2561 times)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
hitech 163 to gamey pls fix
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2007, 04:43:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Saxman
Honestly, I'd rather have it taken out of the game altogether, but the resulting whines negates that possibility.

Instead, I'll ask the question: If I'm in an F4U-1A, and I shoot down a P-51 and an Me-163, how the heck do I only get five perks out of it for landing the sortie?!



If we could spot bomber missions from anywhere on the map, the second they get above 1k, then we wouldn't need 163s. The fact is that bombers are stealth weapons in this game. By the time they get into dar range and/or are spotted, they're already too high and too fast for anybody to stop them. This is totally opposite of what history shows happened.

163s are there because we can't tell bombers are hitting HQ until it's too late to get a conventional fighter up to them.


As for the perks you get, the perk COST of a plane is separate from its ENY. Its ENY is 5 I think. You pay 63 perks, and if you lose the plane you lose the perks, but that doesn't get counted in the perk calculations. Just an FYI (I asked that same question once, long ago)

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23872
      • Last.FM Profile
hitech 163 to gamey pls fix
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2007, 04:47:41 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Saxman
Honestly, I'd rather have it taken out of the game altogether, but the resulting whines negates that possibility.

Instead, I'll ask the question: If I'm in an F4U-1A, and I shoot down a P-51 and an Me-163, how the heck do I only get five perks out of it for landing the sortie?!


F4U-1a   ENY 15
P51D      ENY   8
Me 163   ENY   5


Killing P51 gives 1.875 perks, the Me 163 3 perks. Total perks gained = 4.875. Multiply with current perk point modifier and mission ending modifier (landing your kills gives more perks).
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

Offline ghi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2669
hitech 163 to gamey pls fix
« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2007, 05:14:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by TwinBoom
tin thnks for the constructive post now troll elsewhere

no question on throttle
i question its albility to shut down eng then restart in flight


 Watch this movie, Me163 shows clear the liquid fuel+trottle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk31Lmkz170




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOE29fW8yCk&mode=related&search=

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22408
hitech 163 to gamey pls fix
« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2007, 05:25:14 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Shamus
I dont think that it was common practice to shut off the engine of a 109 or 190 in the middle of a hard break turn either, but i see it done in here on occasion.

If you were to have a time lag of even 5-10 seconds on all planes from engine off to on I think it would stop.

shamus


Best post yet!
-=Most Wanted=-

FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline TwinBoom

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2960
      • 39th FS "Cobra In The Clouds"
hitech 163 to gamey pls fix
« Reply #19 on: February 17, 2007, 05:28:36 PM »
YES ! shamus is a smart man great idea

ghi watched videos nice but they dont answer question
TBs Sounds 
39th FS "Cobra In The Clouds"NOSEART

Offline Gumbeau

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 164
hitech 163 to gamey pls fix
« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2007, 05:30:03 PM »
I've got personal access to a former Luftwaffe Me 163 pilot but you better hurry if you want the scoop.

He is getting long in the tooth and has a habit of building planes in his backyard  and then flying them.

:)

(No I'm not kidding)

Offline Gumbeau

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 164
hitech 163 to gamey pls fix
« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2007, 05:31:51 PM »
Last time I spoke with him he said the only time he ever took up a full load of fuel in a Me 163 he got to 45,000 feet and then the rocket cut out.

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
hitech 163 to gamey pls fix
« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2007, 05:44:18 PM »
Actually, I WASN'T attacking an uncapturable base. I was escorting a squaddie in low-alt buffs who was attacking a different field altogether that WAS capturable (and subsequently we did). I just chased you down BACK to the uncapturable base after you ran out of gas.

Anyway, yet another sign the ENY needs some adjustment. It's a bit FUBAR that:

FM-2 has a lower ENY value than the F4U-1, even though the F4U-1 is superior in really everything but visibility, low-speed turn and departure behavior.

Me-163 has the same ENY value as the F4U-1C and F4U-4.

There's some other goofiness in there, too, that really needs to be looked at.
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
hitech 163 to gamey pls fix
« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2007, 05:57:57 PM »
c-hog and -4hog have the lowest ENY any plane has because they are perked (for good reason). Both are dominators. 5 is as low as it gets. It's the cutoff point. Unless the 262 is ranked 4 or something, that is.

Offline BaldEagl

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10791
hitech 163 to gamey pls fix
« Reply #24 on: February 17, 2007, 06:51:55 PM »
The 163's engine cuts out under negative G's.  If, in fact, thats what the real ones did, and I can only assume that the in-game version is modeled after the real thing, then I would assume they had a way of re-firing the engine.

As to getting one to 45K, I chased a P-51 to almost 40K in one one day.  At ~38K it started to shudder and slightly above that it went into a death stall that I wasn't able to get contol of again until I was under 10K.  I'm not arguing your ex-pilots recollection, just pointing out the 163's limit in the game.

I love flying the 163.  Leave it alone.
I edit a lot of my posts.  Get used to it.

Offline Bubbajj

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 346
hitech 163 to gamey pls fix
« Reply #25 on: February 17, 2007, 07:31:08 PM »
If I'm not mistaken, the fuel in the163s spontaneously combusted upon being mixed. Thats why they blew up a lot. The fuel was really volitile. No reason why you couldn't start it back up by turning on the juice again.

Offline Atoon

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 566
hitech 163 to gamey pls fix
« Reply #26 on: February 17, 2007, 08:39:54 PM »
If i'm not mistaken, the 163 was brought into the game right around the time HQ was connected to radar . As with any/everything else in the game, people have found a more "gamey" use.

Its not an easy bird to fly, even harder to fly well, and theres not much ammo at all. I'd much rather see a limit to simpfire16s & elgay7s, than any modification to 163s.
Thanx for addressing the signature issue FAIRLY, I am morally aloud to patronize your business again. I am Anton & Uknome, Current game-ID Anton1.   *-Brown Nosers STINK!-*

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
hitech 163 to gamey pls fix
« Reply #27 on: February 17, 2007, 09:10:50 PM »
Like Bubbajj said the Me163 used a liquid binary fuel which spontaneously combusted when mixed, so stopping and restarting the engine was possible. Late Me163's were tested with two engines which were used separately, one for cruise and one for combat.

Also the Me163 was a perfectly safe plane to fly, and no production Me163 ever just exploded (although a number of engines were destroyed that way). However the explosive fuel meant that otherwise survivable accidents could quickly become catastrophic. If trouble did arise in the air the pilot would dump one of the binary fuel tanks and thus render the other half harmless.



While demonstrating the Komet to a Japanese delegation, Fritz' engine quit just after take-off at an altitude of about 100 meters. Black smoke came from the aircraft, clearly the aircraft was on fire. Fritz pulled up, and opened the T-Stoff dumping valve. Just a few meters above the trees, I saw a body falling out of the cockpit, and the parachute opened. They went looking for the crash site, and found Fritz drinking coffee in a farmhouse, with a badly strained ankle.

Offline Benny Moore

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
hitech 163 to gamey pls fix
« Reply #28 on: February 17, 2007, 09:16:59 PM »
"Perfectly safe" is so wrong it's almost a lie.  The fuel was caustic (like strong acid or base); a fuel leak which in most ships would result in the pilot being covered in gasoline - dangerous and unpleasant enough in its own right - resulted in the Komet's pilot decomposing alive.  And you can't say that no production Me-163 never exploded.  You simply have no record of such.

It's funny; I saw your name on the last post before opening this thread, and I knew that I would find you gallantly defending Nazi equipment, heedless of facts.  I cannot comment on the original issue, but nearly everyone knows about the corrosive fuel.  I have a hard time believing that you don't; perhaps you just hoped that no one else did?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2007, 09:20:57 PM by Benny Moore »

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
hitech 163 to gamey pls fix
« Reply #29 on: February 17, 2007, 10:40:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Benny Moore
"Perfectly safe" is so wrong it's almost a lie.  The fuel was caustic (like strong acid or base); a fuel leak which in most ships would result in the pilot being covered in gasoline - dangerous and unpleasant enough in its own right - resulted in the Komet's pilot decomposing alive.  And you can't say that no production Me-163 never exploded.  You simply have no record of such.


There were so few Komets made that an almost complete record for all Werk Nr. exists, and I have one in my possession. The fuel was not that corrosive, but the hydrogen peroxide would ignite if it came in contact with organic materials and although not foolproof, the pilots wore protective suits. But if you don’t take my word for it how about Rudy Opitz’?

“Popular Wisdom vs. a Test Pilot’s Experiences” Chief test pilot Rudy Opitz tells it like it was:

1. Rocket engines would explode without warning.

RO: engines were reliable and relatively safe and were adjusted so as to shut down in the event of an imbalance in fuel flow. If there was a problem in engine performance, it related to shutdowns, not explosions. The only instances of engines blowing were in early testing of prototypes or when they had been damaged in battle or by accident.

  2. Leaking fuel could turn pilots to jelly, particularly if the plane flipped over.

RO: pilots, me included, survived overturned Komets, and an overturned ship would not necessarily leak fuel into the cockpit. When fuel contacted organic material, including skin, it ignited after only a few seconds. Our protective nylon suits would not ignite but were porous, and fuel could sop through to the skin.

3. Forward-mounted flaps were necessary to counter a negative pitching moment from the trailing-edge flaps.

RO: the TE flaps were trim flaps only, and the deployment of the forward-mounted underwing flaps did not cause a pitch change.

4. The Komet’s dive to speeds resulting in compressibility were often fatal.

RO: no fatalities resulted from this, to my knowledge. The Komets in such dives recovered after reaching a lower altitude that neutralized the compressibility problems.

5. As many as 15 percent of Komets broke up while pulling out of high-speed dives where compressibility had became a factor.

RO: no such fatalities to my knowledge.

6. Stall characteristics were abrupt and severe and taxed the skills of even experienced fighter pilots.

RO: the plane was equipped with leading-edge slots that eliminated stalls and caused it to mush forward in a mode that was immediately recoverable. The plane would not spin and was intentionally designed to be docile for low-time pilots.

7. Only experienced pilots could adequately handle the airplane at slow speeds.

RO: the plane was docile and friendly at slow speeds, and it had to be for low-time pilots to successfully land it dead-stick.

8. The Komet was not a successful fighter but future development would have made it a formidable interceptor.

RO: The 263—the next incarnation—had retractable landing gear, a pressurized cabin and considerably more fuel, but it never got beyond the early prototype stage.

I agree the 163B was not a successful fighter. Several hundred 163Bs were built,
but only 91 were operational as of December 31, 1944, and only 16 kills were attributed to 163s during the War. Note, however, that while under power or in a fast glide, the 163 could fly circles around any other fighter of its time.

In fact, the true contribution of the Komet was to high-speed flight as evidenced by the success of the delta-wing Concorde and delta-wing space shuttle. These Lippisch planform concepts live on today.

Quote
Originally posted by Benny Moore
It's funny; I saw your name on the last post before opening this thread, and I knew that I would find you gallantly defending Nazi equipment, heedless of facts.  I cannot comment on the original issue, but nearly everyone knows about the corrosive fuel.  I have a hard time believing that you don't; perhaps you just hoped that no one else did?

It’s funny; I saw your name on the last post before opening this thread, and I knew that I would find you attacking me and spouting nothing but ox-manure. I was right.