Let me degress....

[fscott]

I just tried out the Hog for the FIRST time today from a carrier. HiTech happened to be online also. After my takeoff I used hardly a smidget of rudder, hardly enuff to call it used.  Anyway I was really surprised at the lack of torque effect from the Hog and it pretty much flew right off the deck in a straight line without a hitch.

So I said to HT that the hog requries no rudder on takeoff..this is not accurate. Some other gent chimed in saying that I should try it loaded. I say shouldn't make a difference, the torque effects from the engine were so bad it was called the ENSIGN ELIMINATOR. That little phrase means something gents, not a phrase given to the hog lightly. Anyway, no response from HiTech, so thinking perhaps he didn't hear my comment, I say again, hog no rudder needed on takeoff from carrier. Now he responds, "Heard your whine the first 100 times fscott."  I say, uhm that is the second time. Then he says "over the last 3 months I've heard your whines." I'm simply thinking wtf? 1.05 just came out and this is the first time I've tried the hog on the carrier.

Ok big deal then.  I'm pissed now, he is insulting my suggestion, and pretty much a GIVEN that the hog had tremendous torque on takeoff. I say again that it needs fixed because now he seems to be ignoring me. Oh well... he mutes me for ten minutes.

The real issue here is not the fact the hog may need fixed, but HiTech's immediate defensiveness of the hog's lack of torque. Perhaps he has me consfused with someone else? I dunno, and I'd hate to jump to conclusions afterall HT has done a great job with Aces High. All I was doing was basically making a statement that the hog needed torque effects added on carrier takeoff. After I repeated the statement, he takes immediate defense and insults me by saying he's heard MY whine for the 100th time now.

Ok feel free to defend HiTech and flame me and get your browning points. I just thought it was a little over the edge on his part. But again he's the boss here, he has control over all things..........

fscott

[fscott]

"over the last 3 months I've heard your whines."

I should clear that up. hat is not exactly what he said. Not sure the exact statement but it was specifically about the HOG toprque effects. I don't whine much about fm's. This is why I'm a little confused about his defensiveness.

fscott

[Karnak]

Oops

[This message has been edited by Karnak (edited 12-28-2000).]

[Karnak]

He probably got snappy, unfortunately, because he lumped you in with the guys who've been harping on the Hog, and torque effects in general, for months.

The problem I see here is that HTC like us to provide solid historical, or test data from actual aircraft before they look at something as more than a whine or a "feels" wrong comment.  However I have never seen any such data for torque effects and therefore we can't provide anything other than pilot accounts say how bad the torque was in their Hog, Tiffie, Griffon Spit or whatever.

Just a thought, ah well.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Sisu
-Karnak

[Toad]

This is generic; no one take it personally please.

Have you ever done something you were pretty proud of? Write a story, paint a picture, throw a touchdown pass, win a race, landscape your yard?

You know how long or hard you worked on it, you are more familiar with what could have been done better or what didn't come out quite the way you planned. In short, you are intimately aware of any shortcomings and have probably resolved to do better next time.

Still, it's a pretty good piece of work.

Along come the spectators and critics. Some just say "nice job" or "enjoyed what you did". Most who appriecate your work probably remain silent.

Then the nitpickers chime in. They rip you up one side and down the other over faults that you are already intimately aware of or faults that they are imagining, either through simple ignorace or a simple difference of opinion.

They do it without respect, without decency and without letup.

Now suppose you had to listen to these folks for a solid year.

Think you'd get a little snippy sometimes?

I'm a "branded" cheerleader. Doesn't bother me a bit. Know why?

Simply because HTC is TRYING to make a great online WW2 ACM sim. That effort wins my support.

I don't publicly "go negative" on anyone trying to do this. Salute to the AW programmers, salute to the WB programmers, salute to the FA programmers, salute to WW2OnLine programmers, salute to the IL programmers.

I sure couldn't even begin to do what ANY of them are doing right now.

...and all of them are trying to make games that emulate flying WW2 aircraft. Gotta love that.

[funked]

HTC have explained a couple of times that the prop effects are calculated as accurately as they know how.  

Despite this there are some players who insist that the prop effects have been toned down for gameplay reasons.  These folks are basically accusing HTC of lying.  

If you call me a liar to my face, you had better duck.  I doubt HTC feel much differently than I do on the issue.

[Eagler]

fscott
I was on at lunch and saw the exchange. Well I didn't see your 1st comment I saw HT's response your comeback then his "3 month" reply. Don't take it personal. You have to remember they have to build it to please the masses. Torque is off on the 109's also. I figure if they made it real life, they'd hear more complains as many would not be able to handle it. When I joined, 1.02 I think, the 109 had much greater torque on T.O. and landing then it does now. No big deal, it's just a game. Best one out there now IMHO.

Eagler

[Zigrat]

funked they obviously have not done that...


the effects of prop speed and acceleration of the propellar mass are not calculated in torque i believe. the acceleration of a hamilton standard 4 blade (must weigh several hundred pounds?) from 1300 to 2600 rpm for example doesnt have a noticable effect on the airplane, which isnt correct.


i think the torque effects in STEADY STATE are pretty okay, but that the effects of accelerating or decellerating the propellar mass arent currently modeled.


also, the current multi engine modeling leaves much to be desired, IMO. The single engined p-38 will fly relatively easily on one engine, when in fact a rather large rudder input shouold be required to counteract the yawing moment. in addition the CL,max of the wing on the dead engine side should decrease sinceit doesnt have the prop wash over it anymore.

[funked]

I said:    

HTC have explained a couple of times that the prop effects are calculated as accurately as they know how.

Zig said:    

funked they obviously have not done that...

Huh?  How is that obvious?  It's not obvious to me.  Not only is it not obvious that they haven't made the best calculations that they can with their knowledge, it's also not obvious that their calculations are incorrect.

It's clear that you are saying their calculations are incorrect.  Are you further saying that they are liars, that the calculations are intentionally incorrect?  That's how your response reads.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 12-28-2000).]

[Gadfly]

I think "ensign eliminator" had to do with the combo of big bellybutton motor, poor training, no forward view and a catchy slogan more than anything else.  Kinda like the P-39 forward tumble.

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Gadfly:
I think "ensign eliminator" had to do with the combo of big bellybutton motor, poor training, no forward view and a catchy slogan more than anything else.  Kinda like the P-39 forward tumble.

I think that the smashed typhoons on the British fields' right side hangars were,too, the product of a catchy slogan, huh, gadfly?



[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-28-2000).]

[Karnak]

In Tuck's book he described how the first Squadrons to equip with the Hurricane (the RAF's first monoplane fighter) started stories about how it was a beast to fly and you had to watch it and fight it every second or it'd turn on and kill you.  The did this to impress the other pilots, who were flying Gladiators, and to make themselves out to be the best of the best.  In reality the Hurricane was a very forgiving and docile fighter.

Tuck was certain that several pilots, new or just new to the Hurricane, were so nervous because of the stories they'd heard that they went and crashed it, killing themselves.

Tuck flew Spitfires and Hurricanes.

Catchy stories can sometimes kill.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Sisu
-Karnak

[fscott]

Amazing how quickly we get off the subject! Look the two issues were HiTech's defensiveness, of which know I feel perhaps he was just in a defensive mood, and the lack of torque on the Hog's carrier launch.

Funked, I cannot agree at all. I tried several more launches offline with 100% fuel load and no rudder before, during, and after takeoff...the result was a clean almost straight ahead takeoff.

The "Bible" of american fighters, "America's Hundred Thousand" states very clearly under the F4U's "Takeoff and Climb" section that significant rudder and trimmed rudder was required on takeoff. Additionally after takeoff aileron was required to keep it from rolling over to the left and into the ground/water.  

The main question is if this is what is required of an F4U takeoff, then why isn't it required in AH?

fscott

[fscott]

After reading HiTech's reply to a flight model question on the other board, I realize that he WAS in a pissy mood today. He said he was about to explode. However, he also implied that the torque effects were accurate? At least that's how I read it. I guess I'd have to disagree there.

fscott

[Toad]

HT posted this over in General Discussion/Flight Model. There's more there.

"There are pieces of what you call torque I know are very close to real performance BTW did you know real eng torque more than doubled on most planes in 1.04? The yaw effect you are referring to is mostly do to slip stream effects. They might not be spot on but they are very close. I've already spent lots of hours researching ways to better simulate this effect. It will most probably change in the future but to gain more accuracy in that area is not a simple thing and there are lots of bigger fish in the pan at this moment."

IMHO, too many people fall into the "this must be fixed immediately" mode. The game is a never-ending "work in progress". They used to say that on the site.

It's obvious that HT is aware of this area. It's also obvious (from the above post and other previous posts) that this area of the FM will be revisited.

Until then, may I suggest that we all play 1.05 and have fun while waiting for 1.06?