Author Topic: Flight model abuse / grievance  (Read 7361 times)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Flight model abuse / grievance
« on: March 04, 2009, 11:24:52 PM »
I sent an e-mail to HTC just now, after witnessing one of the worst abuses of the bomber flight model in this game, and sent in the following grievance. I'm posting it here as well.


I have a major grievance regarding the AH bomber model. I would like to type it out and supply a film clip as an example. I will post on the AH BBS as well in the "Aircraft and Vehicles" forum. Please at least read through it once before discarding or replying, long though it may seem. Thanks in advance for your time.

The 100BG have been pulling some deliberate abuse of the flight models lately. I won't go into some of the other cases, but this one regards the bomber flight model so I will use them, as they are on the film in question.

(link:
http://www.nakatomitower.com/100bg_BSbombers.zip
size: 2.7MB)

Today we found the 100BG running a b17 mission that I DID get on film (for once, I'm glad because I don't record very often). They flew B17s so high that nobody could catch them. I was flying a Ta152, arguably the BEST high altitude performance plane in the entire game bar none, and I could not get a shot off on them without stalling out in the thin air. I could not turn a 180 or even get my nose pointed anywhere near the bombers before they zipped past me in air so thin that astronauts would have been envious. They were flying so slow and yet nobody else could attack them because they were climbing past 35k. I could do nothing but nose down for a burst of speed and take a cheap shot from directly behind.

They were even bragging on channel 200 about it, and taunting people that could not get close enough to shoot at them (note the chatter regarding BBaw's f4u).

This is a blatant abuse/misuse of a flight model that (in this case) probably doesn't take into account players gaming the game. B17s could not fly this high, nor could they float at 100mph IAS (he was doing 204 true, so he must have had the stall buzzer going nonstop) at the top of the world where even the BEST of fighter aircraft gasp for breath.

The bomber flight model is being abused horribly by AH players. Either by taking 25% fuel when historically no bomber ever did so (they topped off for even short range missions), which not only allows them to fly faster in level flight than historically possible, but also allows them climb rates 3x or 4x that of their historical loadout would allow.

On top of that, with no ability to spot 25k bombers until they hit the radar ring, nobody in any plane can climb up to them in the time it takes to stop them from dropping on their target. These bombers often break 300 mph, and at that speed it takes only 5 minutes to cross an entire sector on an AH map. Meanwhile you have only 2-3 minutes from the time they break radar range until they drop.

Level bombers in AH are effectively the equivelant of the B1B stealth bomber. They cannot be detected until it's more than too late, cannot be caught by anybody unless the bombers randomly pass under their noses and if they happen to be sitting in a late war monster plane at 30k waiting for bombers.

Historically they were spotted hundreds upon hundreds of miles away. Ground spotters and radar on BOTH sides could tell when tiny planes approached, let alone giant formations of massive 4-engined bombers. Bombers were reliant upon fuel, it was more valuable than bombs, rations, water, guns, ammo, anything. Damaged bombers would dump everything BUT the fuel. They could not and did not fly at full throttle in order to conserve this fuel. Even on climbout they did not run their engines at full throttle. Full throttle on bombers was takeoff and emergency use only, in the case of the 4-engine-bombers modeled in AH. Whereas historically this gave attacking fighters well over 150-200mph closer rates from behind the bombers' formation, in this game the nonstop full speed, 25% fuel loadouts, and other ahistorical features of AH bombers, even the LATEST and FASTEST warplanes in this game can brag only 50mph closure rates at times. This makes them sitting ducks for the slaved guns in the triple-plane-formation, allowing even a single hit to disable or kill an attacker.

Bombers are such devastating killing tools in this game that only the newest of the newbies dies in them by NOE missions or suicide diving on targets. Even with medium alt ranges (10k is sufficient) they can survive the thickest of furballs and get out the other side and STILL do the damage they wanted to. These are not jet fighters, and yet lancasters have repeatedly flown higher and faster than Me262s can climb. The lancasters can break 32k and fly at full speed, whereas even a high speed 262 cannot climb up to 30k, and if anywhere near this, it cannot make a single 180-degree turn inside a sector's lines without lossing massive amounts of altitude.

Bombers as a whole are being grossly abused, misused, and horrifically twisted from anything resembling Earth's history of flight during the second world war.

Changes are needed, and needed very badly.

These changes could be any of the following, or any combination of the following, or any other ideas not listed which HTC deems valid.

- Mandate 100% fuel on all level bombers regardless of loadout.

- Implement power limits on bomber engines. Perhaps have current "full" throttle become a togglable "WEP" style power setting only allowable for short periods of time

- Have bomber formations automatically show up on maps when they climb past 8k (AAA limit) no matter what the radar status/dar bar/tower up or down status of airfields they are flying over. Have this be a small triangle or chevron to denote formations.

- Reduce the number of guns shooting at the gunner's aim point. Have only that position from the other planes fire (i.e. all 3 tail positions, or all 3 ball positions, but only whatever position the gunner is currently in)

This is a major problem and currently the worst abuse of the flight model as-is for the past few years in AH. Not only would fixing it solve a lot of problems, it would benefit all players (yes, all players) by not coddling one small group of highly disruptive players.

For the same reason we do not have porkable fuel, and the same reason we have a dozen troop barracks at fields now, to stop a small group of players from ruining the gameplay of the majority, we need to put curbs and limits on bombers, which ruin the majority of the fights and gameplay in the current MAs. Further the bomber models are grossly out of balance for historical scenarios or FSO use. Often when matched with their counterparts, the fighters cannot catch the bombers to engage them!

-Krusty

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
Re: Flight model abuse / grievance
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2009, 11:45:09 PM »
Krusty, I'm beginning to think that you have lost your mind....

B-17s routinely flew combat missions between 25k and 30k (yes, they could fly that high). They weren't abusing the flight model, just using it better than you were.

I watched about half of the film and the problem wasn't the B-17s, but your inability to fly that Ta 152.

I prescribe a dose of reality as the cure.


My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline JunkyII

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8428
Re: Flight model abuse / grievance
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2009, 11:46:56 PM »
I stopped watching when i saw someone say something in the text buffer
Karaya its starting to rub off on you isnt it oink :D
DFC Member
Proud Member of Pigs on the Wing
"Yikes"

Offline Serenity

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7313
Re: Flight model abuse / grievance
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2009, 11:48:42 PM »
This is a blatant abuse/misuse of a flight model that (in this case) probably doesn't take into account players gaming the game. B17s could not fly this high,

Krusty,

I agree Bombers should be fixed, but so should all aircraft in this game. Engine overheats SHOULD be an issue. However, this particular statement is wrong. The noted max service alt. of the B-17 during world war two was 35,500ft as quoted in Flypast's B-17 Flying Fortress, and an Illustrated Guide to the Flying Fortress.

Offline Scherf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Flight model abuse / grievance
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2009, 11:56:59 PM »
What we need now is a "pwnt" jpeg.
... missions were to be met by the commitment of alerted swarms of fighters, composed of Me 109's and Fw 190's, that were strategically based to protect industrial installations. The inferior capabilities of these fighters against the Mosquitoes made this a hopeless and uneconomical effort. 1.JD KTB

Offline Delirium

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7276
Re: Flight model abuse / grievance
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2009, 12:05:40 AM »
Anyone have any popcorn? This is going to be a GREAT thread!
Delirium
80th "Headhunters"
Retired AH Trainer (but still teach the P38 selectively)

I found an air leak in my inflatable sheep and plugged the hole! Honest!

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: Flight model abuse / grievance
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2009, 12:11:26 AM »
Engine overheats SHOULD be an issue.

That's a BS, artificial gameplay limitation and the first thing I shut off in offline sims that give me that option. Plenty of tests out there with engines being run for hundreds of hours literally non-stop at WEP ratings, and logs of pilots exceeding the manufacturer's safety limitations and running max power beyond regs with no harm to the engine.

Now once you burn off all your WEP, THAT should be gone. Those planes only carried so much of the water/menthol/whatever the hell it was. Once it's gone it should STAY gone.

Additionally, I've said it before and I'll say it again: SPEED LIMITS ON DRONES AND SHORTEN UP THE LEASH. That'd put a stop to Lancstukas, and diving, looping BUFF formations really quick (I kid you not. I came in on a formation of B-24s once and the guy was DOGFIGHTING ME. Full loops and didn't lose ONE drone doing it).
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 JunkyII

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8428
Re: Flight model abuse / grievance
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2009, 12:32:25 AM »
Anyone have any popcorn? This is going to be a GREAT thread!
I think its one of those make or break threads that someone needs to set over the top :D
DFC Member
Proud Member of Pigs on the Wing
"Yikes"

Offline Serenity

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7313
Re: Flight model abuse / grievance
« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2009, 12:44:22 AM »
That's a BS, artificial gameplay limitation and the first thing I shut off in offline sims that give me that option. Plenty of tests out there with engines being run for hundreds of hours literally non-stop at WEP ratings, and logs of pilots exceeding the manufacturer's safety limitations and running max power beyond regs with no harm to the engine.

Now once you burn off all your WEP, THAT should be gone. Those planes only carried so much of the water/menthol/whatever the hell it was. Once it's gone it should STAY gone.

Additionally, I've said it before and I'll say it again: SPEED LIMITS ON DRONES AND SHORTEN UP THE LEASH. That'd put a stop to Lancstukas, and diving, looping BUFF formations really quick (I kid you not. I came in on a formation of B-24s once and the guy was DOGFIGHTING ME. Full loops and didn't lose ONE drone doing it).

Sounds good to me. I'm all for anything that makes this a little more realistic!

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Flight model abuse / grievance
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2009, 12:53:41 AM »
That's a BS, artificial gameplay limitation and the first thing I shut off in offline sims that give me that option. Plenty of tests out there with engines being run for hundreds of hours literally non-stop at WEP ratings, and logs of pilots exceeding the manufacturer's safety limitations and running max power beyond regs with no harm to the engine.
That'd be great, but HTC would need enough documentation for every plane in the set, or else they'd have to risk some "conspiracy" complaints for whatever plane "unfairly" had arbitrary/generic engine stress parameters.
Quote
Additionally, I've said it before and I'll say it again: SPEED LIMITS ON DRONES AND SHORTEN UP THE LEASH. That'd put a stop to Lancstukas, and diving, looping BUFF formations really quick (I kid you not. I came in on a formation of B-24s once and the guy was DOGFIGHTING ME. Full loops and didn't lose ONE drone doing it).
I don't think drones artificially made to blow up on any maneuvering is as good a solution (imo it's a bad one) to lancstukas etc.  Make dropping bombs possible only from F6, restrain F6 autopilot to a more reasonable range of dive/climb angles, etc.  The bombers in a formation would have been real human pilots in reality, definitely capable of matching whatever it was the lead pilot was doing.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Serenity

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7313
Re: Flight model abuse / grievance
« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2009, 01:02:53 AM »
That'd be great, but HTC would need enough documentation for every plane in the set, or else they'd have to risk some "conspiracy" complaints for whatever plane "unfairly" had arbitrary/generic engine stress parameters.I don't think drones artificially made to blow up on any maneuvering is as good a solution (imo it's a bad one) to lancstukas etc.  Make dropping bombs possible only from F6, restrain F6 autopilot to a more reasonable range of dive/climb angles, etc.  The bombers in a formation would have been real human pilots in reality, definitely capable of matching whatever it was the lead pilot was doing.

As far as limiting the F6, keep in mind certain aircraft such as the B-25 gave the pilot the ability to "jettison" ordinance from the cockpit as well.

Offline Chalenge

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15179
Re: Flight model abuse / grievance
« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2009, 01:07:50 AM »
This isnt even a well thought out whine.  :rolleyes:

My gripe would be the stallfighting bombers that dive and then zoom while sitting in the tail waiting for anyone to follow. Okay maybe a B17 could do that... Im not sure... but I know the waist gunners would not be happy about it.

'Attention crew Im going to dive hard and then pull up at six Gs...' Yeah right...!!!

Or the Boston formations doing snaprolls... now THATs ridiculous!!!

 :D
If you like the Sick Puppy Custom Sound Pack the please consider contributing for future updates by sending a months dues to Hitech Creations for account "Chalenge." Every little bit helps.

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: Flight model abuse / grievance
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2009, 01:13:32 AM »
That's a BS, artificial gameplay limitation and the first thing I shut off in offline sims that give me that option. Plenty of tests out there with engines being run for hundreds of hours literally non-stop at WEP ratings, and logs of pilots exceeding the manufacturer's safety limitations and running max power beyond regs with no harm to the engine.

Saxman, under what sort of conditions were these tests run?  What you're saying makes me wonder why the F4U had cowl flaps. ;)
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Flight model abuse / grievance
« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2009, 01:16:30 AM »
The US could probably afford the small tradeoff in performance vs. a more reliable engine maintenance schedule.
As far as limiting the F6, keep in mind certain aircraft such as the B-25 gave the pilot the ability to "jettison" ordinance from the cockpit as well.
That's fine, I guess.  Make it a case-by-case thing, if that's closer to reality.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Flight model abuse / grievance
« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2009, 01:48:20 AM »
widewing, your barbs aside, of the 2 dozen or so planes TRYING to get to the 3 bomber formations, only 1 or 2 made it out alive, and my squaddie said on vox he was bugging because he was out of ammo.

Not so much an issue of my handling the 152, it could not have turned any tighter and could not have got a shot on the b17s.

Show me the operational logs of B17s flying at 35k please.

I've seen the figures. A SMALL amount barely made it to 30k. B24s couldn't even get as high as the 17s. Most were in the 25k range, some down as low as the 15k range.

Folks like to toss around the 30k+ for b17s but out of the .. what?... 20,000 built and used, how many sorties actually flew that high? One in 20? Out of a 1000 plane raid, what was the average alt? more like 25k than the 35k you see in the film.