Author Topic: Corsair Turning Ability in AH (Read 13119 times)

Krusty · « **Reply #135 on:** July 19, 2007, 09:33:48 AM »

Benny, HTC doesn't just plug in values. They have greater control than that. They can make the stall as gentle as a P38's or as rough as a 190's. They have control over a LOT of things.

Including, for example, the CoG on the Mossie. That's hard-coded in, and they'd have to redo it from scratch to fix the CoG bug currently seen with the mosquito.

So they can and have done plane-specific coding.

If you ask me, it's fine if they hard-code each plane. It's more work for them, but as long as the end results are correct....

Currently, the end results are not correct.

I don't agree with saxman, though. We don't have it easier because we're all veterans. Even veterans wouldn't stall a corsair on purpose. In this game I've almost never spun out in a corsair. It's hard to make it. I'm quite ham-fisted on the stick, and the most I can seem to do is snap-roll it by pulling back really hard on the stick. We have it easier because it is easier.

I can tell when it's experience kicking in vs the plane simply doing what it does. Landing a corsair or a Ta152 = experience. Stalls in corsairs = the planes. The difference? One requires thought, even if ever so brief.

Benny Moore · « **Reply #136 on:** July 19, 2007, 09:55:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Benny, HTC doesn't just plug in values. They have greater control than that. They can make the stall as gentle as a P38's or as rough as a 190's. They have control over a LOT of things.

Yes, but this is not done by scripting, as "stall gentleness = 35.7, buffetting = 22.2, wing drop = 51.9" but rather by editing the lift, drag, thrust, and weight vectors. Since there are so many of them, if they give each one the correct value (assuming that they have an accurate source for all of them), the end result is quite realistic. The flaps are where I think the problem is. I think that the calculation used for how much drag and how much lift they add is quite a bit off.

SIK1 · « **Reply #137 on:** July 19, 2007, 09:55:26 AM »

O.k. where do I get the corsair that out turns spits, 'cause the ones I'm flyin' sure don't.

Actually I agree with Benny, and Saxman on how far you let the stall develop. I have learned that if you kick right rudder, as soon as the hog starts to depart you can usually save it before you get one rotation of a spin. Note I did say usually. If you get more than one rotation you better have some altitude.

Saxman I don't think I have seen the video you are talking about, is it an airshow video, or is it a USN training video, if it's the latter you might try Zenos.

Benny Moore · « **Reply #138 on:** July 19, 2007, 10:03:33 AM »

Sik1, if you drop flaps in the F4U-4, it will indeed out-turn most Spitfires in Aces High II. Look it up. Dokgonzo's page says it turns tighter, flaps down, than all Spitfires except for the Marks I and V. My experiences in it agree with that. And yet people wonder why I have the F4U-4 disabled in my server.

Krusty · « **Reply #139 on:** July 19, 2007, 10:04:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Benny Moore
Yes, but this is not done by scripting, as "stall gentleness = 35.7, buffetting = 22.2, wing drop = 51.9" but rather by editing the lift, drag, thrust, and weight vectors. Since there are so many of them, if they give each one the correct value (assuming that they have an accurate source for all of them), the end result is quite realistic. The flaps are where I think the problem is. I think that the calculation used for how much drag and how much lift they add is quite a bit off.

Benny we've seen screenshots of some of their tools, so we know they do model flight over various parts of the wings, and can control that.

However, that does not account for everything. That's not the ONLY thing they do. There are many aspects that may not be linked to that in any way, so you can't say "Oh they just tweak this and it's done" -- because you're not 'on the inside' so to speak

P.S. Sik, DokGonzo link in my sig

Benny Moore · « **Reply #140 on:** July 19, 2007, 10:09:09 AM »

If they artificially script aircraft behavior, I'll eat my hat. Hitech?

Krusty · « **Reply #141 on:** July 19, 2007, 10:17:57 AM »

I wouldn't call it "artificial" -- it's all game code, it's 100% artificial. They have certain elements that react different ways. There's no way to know what/how they get the end results unless they tell us.

And we all know how open and informative they are on their internal coding, right?

SIK1 · « **Reply #142 on:** July 19, 2007, 10:46:03 AM »

For some reason I have issues with DokGonzo's websight. The info doesn't show up and I have tried it from several differant computers.

I hardly ever fly the -4 hog so I am not very familiar with what it will and will not do.

Krusty · « **Reply #143 on:** July 19, 2007, 10:53:55 AM »

Hrm... I never have problems.

Anyways, this is what it says:

Plane: no flaps / full flaps
F4U-4: 691 / 428
Spit IX: 632 / 433
Spit VII: 568 / 448
Spit XVI: 567 / 450
F4U-1: 674 / 425

I'm not sure if the F4U-1 is a -1 or a -1A. It doesn't have a -1A on that site.

HoseNose · « **Reply #144 on:** July 19, 2007, 10:54:02 AM »

I'm very smelly still and I've tried outturning spits, but I'll just stick to my scissors with 20 degrees and gear if necessary. Blows less energy and your always ready to run away if need be.

SgtPappy · « **Reply #145 on:** July 19, 2007, 10:57:10 AM »

It,s an F4U-1, Krusty. The A-Hog hasn't been updated in there. Those are all the old values of the old Corsairs.

mtnman · « **Reply #146 on:** July 19, 2007, 12:07:19 PM »

I've never been able to get that page to load correctly either. It takes 10-15 minutes for the few items to load that will, and the others just "x" out.

When it says-

Plane: no flaps / full flaps
F4U-4: 691 / 428
Spit IX: 632 / 433
Spit VII: 568 / 448
Spit XVI: 567 / 450
F4U-1: 674 / 425

Does it happen to give the speed and/or time required to complete the circle? If the spit is actually flying any faster than the corsair through that circle, then the corsair isn't actually out-turning it.

My experience in the Lufberry's with spits is that I can't keep up with them and they crawl around behind me.

Also, from what I remember of the spit flaps, you're comparing apples to watermelons. Spits have the split flaps right? The ones that are either up or down, with no variation of degrees? How much deflection do they give? Aren't they of less chord? Weren't spit flaps advertised for slowing down to land, rather than to aid in manuevering? (Far from a spit afficianado here)

MtnMan

Krusty · « **Reply #147 on:** July 19, 2007, 12:34:25 PM »

It just says "turn radius."

Spit flaps don't work very well, as you noted, but in all fairness I included them.

It doesn't matter, though, because F4U flaps are by FAR the most effective flaps in the game (for no particular reason), second would probably be P-38, and behind both of those the other US planes. I believe Karaya/Masherbaum did some comparison once across the board based on stall speeds.

SIK1 · « **Reply #148 on:** July 19, 2007, 02:47:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mtnman
I've never been able to get that page to load correctly either. It takes 10-15 minutes for the few items to load that will, and the others just "x" out.

Maybe the site just doesn't like hog drivers.

Knegel · « **Reply #149 on:** July 19, 2007, 06:09:16 PM »

Hi,

if i got it wrong, can somone please explain why the F2A test and calculations are so far away from what we have in game??

Even similar planes regarding the powerload+wingload dont show a similar turn rate reduction like the F2A. Look to the F4F, HurriIa, SpitIa, 109E4 or the 110C. They simply dont lose turn rate like the F2A, but the turn radius reduction is much higher.

Are the F2A flaps the most worse of all WWII fighters and are the calculations offered before so much wrong, or is the modeling of the flaps in AH wrong??

Again, this wasnt always so, actually for most planes this is rather new(the 109´s and 190´s for example), so the makers once must have had a other understanding than now.

Benny, the makers can insert different datas for each plane, the problem is to find datas. Where do we get the lift and drag datas of the F4U-4 from?? Where do we get the lift and drag datas of the full flap condition from??

The airfoil datas dont help that much, cause the wing planform (wing shape), the form of the fuselage and wing tips and other influences, like cannons, not covered undercarriages, dust, etc make a calculation of this values hopeless. We always will result in a "greyzone of realism", where we have a bandwith of credible possibilitys(even the real planes of the same type never had the same values and so behaviour).

Thats why i dont wanna discuss, if the F4U turn to good or not, imho its inside the "greyzone of realism", although its imho more on the optimistic side, but how all flaps in AH work probably is badly wrong.

We have the F2A turn calculations and tests, if someone can proof them wrong, or if someone have similar turntests of other planes with "normal" flaps, which show similar results like the AH planes, iam willing to believe all is ok.

Greetings,

Knegel