What they say about AH

[yanksfan]

Originally posted by Karnak
Are you saying what you "know" or do you actually have sources?  I ask because that contradicts what I have read.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry, but unless you can actuall provide evidence of your claims I can't take your say over these other documented cases.

 

http://www.tailwheel.nl/n/northamericanp51dmustang/p51trainingmanual/index.html

Read page 14 of this P51D pilots flight manuel and you will not have to speculate, i was making a generalized comment on what i had seen on another thread and what I have seen from other sources.

Here is the manuel, read it.

have a great day

[Barnes828]

"Last time I was in AH was before they shutdown H2H (which makes me laugh btw) But anyway, I was in a f6f5 at 25,000 feet, had been for a while going back to my base with 1/4 tank of gas, and no ammo, when up from the base below me comes a spitfire mk16 straight up i the air shoots me down and then called me a dweeb."

Happens to me all the time

[PanosGR]

I think HTC is making a terrific job and that’s why I’m still here. Someone said something about balance between reality and game and I think this is the case here. But, I believe a few more “realistic” inputs won’t harm anyone and I wonder how a player here would react during ACM under a certain “management pressure”.
To gather all these treads from other forums took time and by no means its a representative part of these specific forums concerning AH. Is just what I tried to find out.

Btw is anyone knows what the heck this means
“ya you got a few more layers of flight modeling detail to process, but once you get a feel fore TW's 6 point floating model you will never go back to 4 point models, like the one AH has. Heck it only had 2 floating points in ah1. I have been told this is largely why TW has such a unique feel.

What is the 6 point floating model and why AH has a 4 point floating model

[Widewing]

Originally posted by yanksfan
http://www.tailwheel.nl/n/northamericanp51dmustang/p51trainingmanual/index.html

Read page 14 of this P51D pilots flight manuel and you will not have to speculate, i was making a generalized comment on what i had seen on another thread and what I have seen from other sources.

Here is the manuel, read it.

have a great day

Yanks, it was commonplace for pilots to exceed the WEP time limit recommendation, and almost always without breaking the engine. Here's a typical example of a P-51 chasing an Me 262, running at 74" of MAP for 15 minutes without the slightest problem.



In another example, a P-51 chases a 190 for 50 miles (two sectors in game) pulling 70" MAP. At 360 mph, he ran the engine in WEP for nearly 9 minutes.



Roy Webb's P-51...



In late 1944, Republic Aviation ran a durability test on an R-2800 C series engine. They ran it continuously at MIL power with one 15 minute burst at 80" MAP every hour. After 250 hours the engine was removed from the test stand and torn down for inspection. It proved to be badly worn, however, there was no indication of impending failure of any internal component.

As has been mentioned, WEP restrictions were in place to limit wear and tear in normal operation. In combat, no one paid the slightest attention to those restrictions. Engines were pushed as hard as necessary. Especially when in a situation where survival was the primary issue, and it didn't matter what air force you were flying for or what type of fighter. Engines were expendable. If it had to be changed, so be it... You made it home.

There has never been a more durable aircraft engine than Pratt & Whitney's R-2800. Yet, the AAF set a 5 minute WEP restriction. Believe me, this was an institutionalized restriction and not a reflection on the R-2800. Ask any combat pilot about WEP restriction in battle and they will give you a smirk and tell you it was ignored. Engines are less expensive to replace than whole airplanes and pilots.

My regards,

Widewing

[Old Sport]

Originally posted by PanosGR
What is the 6 point floating model and why AH has a 4 point floating model

I think you'll have to go to the forum where that was posted and ask them. Whether it "means" anything, I couldn't say. Sounds like propaganda that may not have much basis in reality.

Supposedly the main code guy at TW is developing their latest version which is supposed to support about anything you might want to develop, including guided missiles. For example, he is said to have coded into the next release the solar system and 9000 stars so you can navigate at night if you want, and so that all stars are in their correct position for any real date during WWII. On the other hand, currently there are no manable gun turrets, no carriers, no this and no that. TW is a volunteer "community" development based on the TW engine, and there is a lot that is lacking.

I fly TW and up to this point it is definitely not superior to AH. It's different. Some minor things I like about it, but there are many things I appreciate a great deal more in AH. For one, there's full support for TIR 6 DOF in AH, but on 3 DOF in TW, and that is extremely annoying when you are used to looking all around.

Best regards

[Xasthur]

I have an older copy of Il2 that I played for a while while I was waiting for my internet to be connected in my new house and in my opinion it didn't have anything much on AH.

The environments look nicer and all that... but it's a flight sim, not a nature walk.

The one thing that really impressed me in Il2 was the way the water works.

I actually made a point of crashing into water a few times because it was so nice.

Having some real water would be cool... but again... it's a flight sim and I'd rather see HTC continue on with what they're doing at the moment... upgrading and adding aircraft.

There is one other thing I loved about Il2.... It was the progressive engine damage model.

Running the engine too hot or taking damage initiated a progressive engine degradation. Power out-put drops and the sounds indicating the gradual destruction of the engine were great too.

Adding something like this, as opposed to the oil-hit -> fly until you run dry -> engine stops dead would be cool.

Other than that.... Il2 does nothing for me and I've not played it since my internet connection was installed.

[Krusty]

Xasthur, you're right about the water. I forgot to mention that in my last post. AH has better land, IL2 better water.


Panos: It's hype. HTC doesn't share this kind of stuff. In all my time of reading the AH forums (since after AH left BETA) I haven't run across any reference to "floating point models."

He's using his own made-up terms to describe something HTC has never talked about, so he's BSing to make TW look better.

Most folks in TW have left, given up hope, or out and out QUIT because the engine is so terribly buggy, inaccurate, and limiting that they can't do what they want with it. The "next version" has been in the works for 6 years, and in fact the main coders have left so it's never coming. The base code engine is so limiting that large amounts of drag are hard-coded into cooling flaps, regardless of which plane and which cooling flaps are in use. Durability of a plane part is directly linked to the weight given to said part, as well. Many plane builders have complained about these and many other bugs in the TW forums.

TW is so flawed on even the most basic levels that it will never be "accurate" as most TW folks claim. I think TW caters to the minority group that likes fiddling with engine settings, only....

They're not accurate settings!! It's plug-and-play! They plug in the power of the engine and a few other settings, and expect it to generate a perfectly accurate power curve. Most planes plug in the most basic values for the engine but then don't even include the WEP, max, takeoff, cruise, continuous throttle settings for the engine, meaning they never tested them in the first place. Which means they only compare top speeds, they aren't very accurate.

It's like trying to duplicate the Mona Lisa with legos. Only you have to use the ones you have. And you don't have many. You can come up with some things that might resemble it (what TW is now) but it is nowhere near accurate, and claiming it is (what TW fanatics say now) is absurd to anybody outside looking in.

My little $0.02 rant.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Xasthur
There is one other thing I loved about Il2.... It was the progressive engine damage model.

Running the engine too hot or taking damage initiated a progressive engine degradation. Power out-put drops and the sounds indicating the gradual destruction of the engine were great too.

I liked the idea, but NOT how IL2 programmed it.

IL2 you take any single hit anywhere near the engine and you're done for. Game over, you can't produce enough power to stay in flight.


Historically some planes took massive engine damage and soldiered on.

Some at reduced power, but for hours. One pilot in WW2 took major engine damage, was going to bail, but he had some kills on the guncam and there was serious competition with other squads about this, so he kept at it, and it took him almost all the way home (a long distance from the feeling I got reading about it). There was some pilot with a radial engine that took a cannon round through the cowling that sheared off parts of two cylinders (showing the pistons!) and he couldn't even feel a power difference, nor did the engine slow down. He landed without incident.


In IL2, you sneeze at a plane and the timer starts. When the timer gets to 0 your lose all power regardless of how weak the damage was.

I never liked that.

[moot]

One great thing about Il2 is shallow cannon hits.. If you present as much shallow surfaces to the enemy as you can, you run the chance of his cannon hits just glancing off or no doing more than burning the paint.  Really cool to pull off vs. 30mm birds.

One anecdote I only recall now is about vert stabs in Il2:
I once lost a vert stab, and could fly around with a minimal yaw stability penalty... There was some real slip as you'd expect from losing the one and only yaw control surface on the plane, but only when I reduced throttle to almost nothing. This was in one plane (late model C205) and I supposed it had special aerodynamics qualities to make this happen.
But later in a 152 I once again could fly with barely any sideslip with just two small vert stab structural stubs left on the tail. Which was surprising to say the least, given the huge sideslip you get with a damaged rudder in AH, and the relatively big aspect ratio. I didn't experiment further with that since i was pissed and reupped asap to kill the bastard that got me...
The real conclusive evidence was a P63 that I put two 30mm hits on with a K4 from almost point blank in a rolling scissors. It didn't seem to have much damage from the first round which hit somewhere in the forward half of the fuselage, but the second one hit in the tail, and I just broke the scissors thinking I had TKO'd it... Not so.

Just then I ran out of fuel and the P63, with no vert stab at all, maneuvered down from about 10-15K to the deck while correcting its approach for my evasives for two or three consecutive killshot positions, from probably 350 mph down to 200 or less, with no sign of slip.

There's some nice stuff in Il2's physics, but they are without a doubt just tacked together rather than the result of a single good physics engine.

[Yeager]

heres what I say about AH: If your interested download the game for a two week free trial.  If you like it, great.  If not GTFO.  All that other rubbish is just so much hot post intestinal gas.

[RTHolmes]

Roy Webb
After approximately 50 miles ...

wow 22k dive to the deck and pursues for 2 whole sectors I thought that just happened in the MA

[rabbidrabbit]

Originally posted by Yeager
heres what I say about AH: If your interested download the game for a two week free trial.  If you like it, great.  If not GTFO.  All that other rubbish is just so much hot post intestinal gas.

Absolutely!

One should never suggest ideas or try to improve a community!:rolleyes:

[Denholm]

Well, that happens nowadays that H2H is gone.

[ImMoreBetter]

Alright, I'll admit it. I've never played AH2, only Il2. I came to this message board to lurk around a bit; an open minded expansion of the horizons. I plan on taking my two weeks. I'm just waiting for a time when I can dedicate more time than I currently have.


-

As far as statistics go, Il2 and AH2 are too similar to give the advantage over another. I ran a few calculations and found that small differences in top speed range from 2-5 Km/h where large ones are 7-10.

That isn't much, close enough to pass as individual interpretation. IMO. Nothing worth bragging or griping about.


I did notice several FM trends, however.

In AH, some planes have a certain altitude range where top speed does not increase, only stays the same. Where, in Il2, the performance of the same planes almost always drop 5-10 Km/h.

Also, in AH, using emergency power does not do anything for you at certain altitudes. In Il2, there is always an improvement in speed, though only 2-5 Kp/h. Again, too close to brag about.


The statistical FMs are too close for using it in a realism debate.

-

As for Boom n' Zoom versus Turn n' Burn...


Here at AH, furballing is worshiped more than position fighting. TnBing is much more fun and honorable, Bnz is cowardly.

On the Il2 boards, the exact opposite. BnZing is looked upon for being much safer and TnBing more riskier and foolish.

This is not necessarily true outside of the message boards. I see WAY more TnBing than BnZing in Il2.

Both were strategies applied in WWII. It is merely a differentiation of cultural evolution of the two simming communities.

In example:
In Il2, dropping flaps is an attempt, rather than the good tactic it is seen at AH.

-

The engine damage model in Il2 is not as touchy as described in this thread. I've never had a problem with it.

I took engine hits in several different planes last night. I was able to fly back to base without a practical (or even noticeable) loss in power or speed.

It takes a relatively heavy engine hit to trigger the progressive damage timer.

Same with engine overheating. 90% of my dogfighting time is with an overheated engine. I may drop the throttle to 90% if the dogfight has been going on for a while.

[yanksfan]

Ever any questions.... ask Widewing, he da man:aok

Don