P-40N (and update the other P-40s)

[a1945]

Why do we need another P-40? I mean how many times do the 40s in the game come out, then if they do, you've got spits, mustangs, hell i think the 38 could do better than a 40 but hey ya want another one go ahead, just make sure its what you want.

[Vudak]

BnZ, the bottom line is, if something is wrong, and you can prove it, it will (eventually) be changed.

Heresay, pilot accounts, wikipedias, etc., etc., etc., do not count as proof.  At all.

HTC doesn't just pull numbers out of the air.  They do have data that they use.  What precisely it is, I couldn't tell you (not my thing).  If you poke around the aircraft/vehicles threads for awhile, you could probably make a good educated guess.

[BnZ]

BnZ, the bottom line is, if something is wrong, and you can prove it, it will (eventually) be changed.

Heresay, pilot accounts, wikipedias, etc., etc., etc., do not count as proof.  At all.

HTC doesn't just pull numbers out of the air.  They do have data that they use.  What precisely it is, I couldn't tell you (not my thing).  If you poke around the aircraft/vehicles threads for awhile, you could probably make a good educated guess.

We are not talking about wingspan, weight, horsepower, rate of climb, top speed, etc. We are talking about the one bit of data that as far as I know WASN'T exhaustively tested by aircraft manufaturers in a scientific manner. The only data I have ever been able to run across in regards to turning seems to be pilot "feel" in both mock and real dogfights. Believe me, I've looked. If all we've got is an average of pilot "feelings that X plane was better/worse/about equal in turnig, that IMO is still better evidence than computer modeling. At least computer modeling of the complexity that can be run on a home PC.

[angelsandair]

Why do we need another P-40? I mean how many times do the 40s in the game come out, then if they do, you've got spits, mustangs, hell i think the 38 could do better than a 40 but hey ya want another one go ahead, just make sure its what you want.

And you see, just by reading you're post, you underestimated 2 planes, the P-40 and the P-38, go back to your La-7.

[Vudak]

We are not talking about wingspan, weight, horsepower, rate of climb, top speed, etc. We are talking about the one bit of data that as far as I know WASN'T exhaustively tested by aircraft manufaturers in a scientific manner. The only data I have ever been able to run across in regards to turning seems to be pilot "feel" in both mock and real dogfights. Believe me, I've looked. If all we've got is an average of pilot "feelings that X plane was better/worse/about equal in turnig, that IMO is still better evidence than computer modeling. At least computer modeling of the complexity that can be run on a home PC.

Now, like I said, this isn't my thing, so I'm just making an educated guess here (or at least trying to), until someone who actually knows what they're talking about shows up...  But...

If you knew all the other data...  IE, drag coefficient, weight, dimensions, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseaum, and you correctly modelled "the world" wouldn't your results be as they were, or at least pretty close?

I ask this because there is a hidden RV8 in this game (not sure if you're aware or if it was before your time).  A plane that HiTech personally owns, and has personally flown many times, and has personally modelled into the game to test how IT works in the game versus in real life.

So basically, what I'm asking...  Is if HiTech finds that his RV8 feels "correct" in this game, and he has modelled it in this game using the same statistics that he has to model other aircraft, isn't it logical, that assuming his statistics are correct, they too would feel "correct?"

This is the way I'm looking at it...  Where's one of the technical guys to solve the issue?

[BnZ]

So basically, what I'm asking...  Is if HiTech finds that his RV8 feels "correct" in this game, and he has modelled it in this game using the same statistics that he has to model other aircraft, isn't it logical, that assuming his statistics are correct, they too would feel "correct?"

What, you CAN'T fly the RV anymore?

But, to answer your question, no, not nessecarily. Let me digress abit...

"X-Plane" is a pure civillian simulator. There is no combat, missions, communications, damage models etc, to be concerned with. It is sittting there doing NOTHING but calculating how your hypothetical aircraft is flying many, many, many times per second through an enviroment and rendering that on-screen. And the latest version of X-Plane is a LOAD for the sort of marginal PCs  like mine that I easily run AHII on. And X-Plane STILL doesn't do certain corners of the envelope that are just too hard to calculate well (post-stall behavior, trans-sonic, etc.)

So while with enough computing power and data you might be able to simply calculate how any aircraft flies from its various dimensions, power stats, with very little chance of departure from reality, I am skeptical of how infallible anything that runs on a desktop PC can be.

[Noir]

I looked up the information from wiki and used that here. Read the other quote Noir

That is NOT data, just a collection of stories, hardly any FM info. And the objectiveness of the text is arguable.

On the side note, its been discussed numerous times, HT won't change the FM of the planes over a few glorified memories of veterans. And I agree with HT (cf chuck yeager)

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

Vudak, hit the nail on the head.




On the other hand, why is it so many planes in aces high are "mixed" planes?
Why is it a p40E is realy a p40K so on and so forth?


eh?

Perhaps the data is just is not there.

[Krusty]

HTC has data from probably 2 decades now. It was a matter of getting a plane into a young fledgling game to round out the planeset, and using the data they already had filed away (which I guess was a P-40K dataset).


BnZ you can find plenty of info on P-40s. Just not from Hitech. They keep their info to themselves, but in many cases (some 190s, etc) you can pretty much line up the power curves and climb rates to pinpoint which test they used as the basis for their flight model.

As for side-by-side? Those are rare. But they do test "alone" very often. You have a report on a P-40E that says it turns with a 648-foot, and a separate report of a 109F that says it turns with a 591-foot radius, and you don't need them in the same report.

There's no mystical conversion there, they're both using units of measure. It's not brain surgery to say x > y or y > x based on the info.

You're looking for a shooter on the grassy knoll, coming off as a fool, and you say you're not interested in what others think. Okay, no skin off my back. But don't expect folks to give you time of day next time you come up with a dumb thought.

[BnZ]

As for side-by-side? Those are rare. But they do test "alone" very often. You have a report on a P-40E that says it turns with a 648-foot, and a separate report of a 109F that says it turns with a 591-foot radius, and you don't need them in the same report.

I have not come across any report saying in so many words "Plane A has a minimum turning circle of X feet."

I was not aware such existed, especially not for all the planes modeled in AHII.

Where may I find them?

In the one specific case that I know of some sort of "turn ranking" being compiled, the HTC's P-51 disagrees sharply with the RAF's test. Not just tests vrs. the 109G, which may be problematic as evidence, but also in the matter of the P-51's turn as compared to the P-47, Typhoon, and Tempest.

Who is closer to reality? I'm betting on the WWII RAF.

P.S. I'm not indifferent to other people's thoughts...I am indifferent to respect or disrespect garnered on the internet forum over my opinions regarding modelling of WWII fighters in a video game. If you are going to disrespect me, please do it over something that matters. 

[angelsandair]

This thread has losts its entire point of getting a new P-40 and updating the old P-40s... 

[trigger2]

From Wikipedia

P-40N (manufactured 1943-44), the final production model. The P-40N featured a stretched rear fuselage to counter the torque of the larger, late-war Allison engine, and the rear deck of the cockpit behind the pilot was cut down at a moderate slant to improve rearward visibility. A great deal of work was also done to try and eliminate excess weight to improve the Warhawk's climb rate. Early N production blocks dropped a .50 cal (12.7 mm) gun from each wing, bringing the total back to four; later production blocks reintroduced it after complaints from units in the field. Supplied to Commonwealth air forces as the Kittyhawk Mk IV. A total of 553 P-40Ns were acquired by the Royal Australian Air Force, making it the variant most commonly used by the RAAF. Subvariants of the P-40N ranged widely in specialization from stripped down four-gun "hot rods" which could reach the highest top speeds of any production variant of the P-40 (up to 380 mph), to overweight types with all the extras intended for fighter-bombing or even training missions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-40
And apparently, the P-40 was one of the tightest turning fighters of the war  I dont think it's modeled that way in AHII it would be nice. 

Sthing else that I've noticed with the p-40E (brilliant plane, I love it...) is that it had a rubber sealing fuselage, but it seems to be one of the most common damages (besides the left flap...)

[a1945]

And you see, just by reading you're post, you underestimated 2 planes, the P-40 and the P-38, go back to your La-7.

i dont fly las theyre horrible i fly the spit and mustang

[Widewing]

BnZ... you're saying you think the jug and 190 fly like they should, well it doesn't matter one rat's buttocks what you THINK they should fly like. They're modeled based after actual flight tests. They are modeled to meet certain criteria. HISTORICAL criteria.

The completely unrelated coincidence that you LIKE the way they are modeled has nothing to do with the way you're arguing nor with the way P-40s should be modeled.

The FM of the P-40E in-game is said to be closest to that of the P-40K. We're not talking theoretical wiki listings of speed, we're talking complete aircraft testing (climb, power, turns, etc). The 109E is based off a 109E-3/4. We know these aircraft are modeled after the real thing.

The P-40E (as it is in AH2) turns a full 100+ feet wider than the 109E, and is no better than ANY early 109 variant in-game (all based off historical figures)

(Image removed from quote.)

So go ahead and say you think the P-40 should fly like a zero just so that the US planeset has something that can out-turn 109s, regardless of historic fact. You're not earning any respect (probably the reverse).

Krusty, you realize that the P-40E had a lower wing loading than the Bf 109F, right?

It should turn better... Even tho it doesn't in game.

There's lots on anecdotal evidence that indicates that the P-40 was at least equal to the 109 in turn radius, with the P-39 doing likewise. Our P-40s have some modeling issues.. Always have. Plus, the 109's flaps are a bit over done in the game, IMHO.

Where the 109 should be and is superior is in the vertical.


My regards,

Widewing

[Ack-Ack]

Okay, you're right. It is impossible for the designers of flight sims to screw up the incredibly complex task of modeling aircrat, either inadverdently, or, deliberately to make things more "balanced." No matter that the latter has been SEEN to happen in other flights sims. Computer modeling>Actual WWII pilot reports and flight tests. Little tidbits of info, like the fact that he P-38 was an uber-plane in another game designed by the same person whereas it is simply decent in AHII do nothing to undermine the infallible nature of sim flight model programers, who are never wrong, even when their results are contradictory.

P-38 was hardly uber in WB, at least when I played it wasn't.  It was like the P-38 in here, in the hands of the average player it was an average plane.  In the hands of someone that knew how to fly it, it was deadly.


ack-ack