AH Spit IX is too slow!

[funkedup]

I'll reply to Supongo's claim about E-retention:

Some of you may know Wells.  He makes the flight models for Targetware and is very knowledgable in aircraft physics.  A while ago he made an independent calculation of energy retention for several Aces High planes in high-g turns.  He then did flight testing to compare the physics predictions with what happens in AH.  

Sure enough, AH came out very close to his theoretical predictions.  The Spitfires should, and do, retain energy better than almost any plane in a high-g turn.  This is proven by physics and proven by many combat experiences and comments from veterans who flew the plane.  That settles the issue for me.
 http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000906

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[Toad]

90% of the posts you see on this board crying out for realism are for "selective realism".

That is, the poster wants what HE personally  _feels_ is realistic and important.

For example, see how many of these guys want the autopilot totally removed from the large majority of fighters that didn't have them.

Argue about metric instrumentation all you want... it's not nearly as far off from realism as a three-axis programmable autopilot in an airplane that didn't have an autopilot at all. (Programmable: how many WW2 autopilots from any nation allowed you to input a particular climb or descent speed and then have it actually fly that speed?)

OK, start the cry for removing the autopilot... then I'll give you another example.

It's NOT a simulator... it's a game. Get over it.

Oh, yes. Like Karnak has often wondered, I'd like to know when the Brit fans are going to be able to have a thread discussing THEIR aircraft that doesn't instantly turn into a "heart-rending, tear-jerking tail of injustice to the LW in game modeling".

Sheesh. Give these guys the same courtesy they extend to you. Yeah, they butt into your threads but not NEARLY to the extent that you totally take over theirs!

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]

[38isPorked]

"-the speed difference berween the two is not enuff,
- the attacker zoom up in a *high* "g" pull up, blowing off too much E,
- the attacker gets below the pray's horyzontal plane (sp?), then blowing off too much E"

Speed difference: Im diving on it (45 degree dive) and getting from d3.0 to d300'ish less than a second. Im very near compression. That itself tells me the Spit is NOT going anywhere near as fast compared to me. Spit notice me (or sees tracers) and does a turn that puts his planform facing ME before it dissapears to one side of my gunsight view(and I dont turn at all). That is a very high-g turn. I blast past it, start with a 20 degree climb (not pulling more than a 2g's) to gain some alt and a little separation, then slowly pull nose to 90 degrees up, not using C-Trim, the plane is kept nicely trimmed the whole way. I look at my 6 constantly and the spit, which had turned hard and put itself on my 3 oc or 9 oc when I flew past it (and its nose pointing away from my plane) turns AGAIN back into my vector quite quickly, noses up and gets inside d1.0 from me.

In a P-38, you dont "dive below" the target unless you dont enough speed to catch it or secure that you can zoom back up, doing so when you at high speed only invites compression lock up and a very humiliating death by the "prey" as your plane flies into its guns  

So im left with a few option on how the spit does that. Either its zoom ability is waaaay over what it should be (being a crappy climber vs 38) or its E-retention is too high (doing 2 high g turns and zooming up and closing on a plane that was nearly twice as fast and has much better zoom rate). There is no way to "misjudge" E state of a spit when you are closing on it reeeal fast on its 6.

[Serapis]

"-the speed difference berween the two is not enuff,
- the attacker zoom up in a *high* "g" pull up, blowing off too much E,
- the attacker gets below the pray's horyzontal plane (sp?), then blowing off too much E"
Speed difference: Im diving on it (45 degree dive) and getting from d3.0 to d300'ish less than a second. Im very near compression. That itself tells me the Spit is NOT going anywhere near as fast compared to me. Spit notice me (or sees tracers) and does a turn that puts his planform facing ME before it dissapears to one side of my gunsight view(and I dont turn at all). That is a very high-g turn. I blast past it, start with a 20 degree climb (not pulling more than a 2g's) to gain some alt and a little separation, then slowly pull nose to 90 degrees up, not using C-Trim, the plane is kept nicely trimmed the whole way. I look at my 6 constantly and the spit, which had turned hard and put itself on my 3 oc or 9 oc when I flew past it (and its nose pointing away from my plane) turns AGAIN back into my vector quite quickly, noses up and gets inside d1.0 from me.

In a P-38, you dont "dive below" the target unless you dont enough speed to catch it or secure that you can zoom back up, doing so when you at high speed only invites compression lock up and a very humiliating death by the "prey" as your plane flies into its guns

So im left with a few option on how the spit does that. Either its zoom ability is waaaay over what it should be (being a crappy climber vs 38) or its E-retention is too high (doing 2 high g turns and zooming up and closing on a plane that was nearly twice as fast and has much better zoom rate). There is no way to "misjudge" E state of a spit when you are closing on it reeeal fast on its 6.
 

That is certainly not the spitfire I've flown. If it was, I wouldn't be trying to get a handle on the P-51 right now. Some film would be nice, without that, well...


 

Argue about metric instrumentation all you want... it's not nearly as far off from realism as a three-axis programmable autopilot in an airplane that didn't have an autopilot at all. (Programmable: how many WW2 autopilots from any nation allowed you to input a particular climb or descent speed and then have it actually fly that speed?)
Toad

You mean that in RL they couldn't get up, grab a beer, take a leak, and indulge the wife in a few minutes of meaningless conversation while grabbing alt? No wonder war is hell  

Charon

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]

[R4M]

Originally posted by Toad:
For example, see how many of these guys want the autopilot totally removed from the large majority of fighters that didn't have them.

Argue about metric instrumentation all you want... it's not nearly as far off from realism as a three-axis programmable autopilot in an airplane that didn't have an autopilot at all. (Programmable: how many WW2 autopilots from any nation allowed you to input a particular climb or descent speed and then have it actually fly that speed?)

HELL THAT would rock!. I mean it!.

 

OK, start the cry for removing the autopilot... then I'll give you another example.

Prolly I'd agree with it, too.   .

 

It's NOT a simulator... it's a game. Get over it.

It's a game wich intends to closely re-create WWII air combats. Read the www.hitechcreations.com  main page advertisement, if you dont believe me;

Aces High takes the art and science of vintage WWII air combat
and sets it in an online high intensity environment where
hundreds of players can battle it out with and against
each other.  High fidelity air combat is the heart of
Aces High, but it doesn't end there.  

 To do that, to simulate "HIGH FIDELITY AIR COMBAT", you NEED to re-create the WWII planes as closely to reality as possible. That means the most real FMs possible, and for me that means that certain items wich were not present historically in some planes need to be removed. And certain items present in other planes need to be placed there.

Its a game, yes. One wich tries to be realistic (or at least that is what they sell in the advertisement, huh?). So, well, realism is what some of us want, Toad.

So stop the "its a game" thing, because, while it is, is a game wich sells historical FIDELITY in its advertisement. So if we ask for such fidelity, I'd say we're much in our right to do it. Right?.

Get over it  

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]

[funkedup]

RAM check private messages.

[Toad]

Ram, any rational analysis of the changes implemented to AH by HTC since the beta would conclude that they are NOT building a high-fidelity aircraft simulator for the PC.

They have crafted an absolutely excellent air combat game that has a very, very good flight model with a reasonable amount accurate elements and a reasonable amount of gameplay concessions.

You seem to be searching for "total realism" as YOU define it. Sit back, review the progress of the game and realize that:

1) You have input but no control. Beyond that, HTC itslef defines the "realism"... and none of us get a vote. Input far more than most other games, but no vote.

2) HTC has obviously shaded this more towards a great game than an absolutely correct high-fidelity simulation.. and they aren't going to change that.

Metric gauges? A very minor concession to gameplay in _almost_ every player's eyes.
Like the CA, there just aren't that many that really care.

So, you and all those millions   of other "selective realist" players that just LOVE the improvement that the Combat Arena made to the game might as well relax a bit.

Remember the guys crying about the fights being too far apart there? There ya go; SR rears it's ugly head yet again.

I'd like to see how many folks would dive into the CA if you got your wish for no autopilots and accurately scaled maps.

Sure, some would sit at their computer to recreate the BOB as LW. Takeoff, form up, fly to England, head home low on gas.

An hour and a half or so of flying with about 20 minutes of that actually in the combat area where you MIGHT find a fight.

Try to get them to set that up and lets see how heavily populated that arena would be.

... and that's why the wise folks at HTC have made the game what it is. Because their way it's TONS OF FUN!

[-ammo-]

yea --give me my paddle blade prop and 3500 FPM climb in my D11 too. And give us the Spit Mk XIV, perked to about ohhh 8 points, that would be about right.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Buzzbait:
As it stands at present, every Spitfire, or Spitfire based plane represented, has been significantly porked, by having the worst possible model selected.

(Spit V, Spit IX, Seafire IIC)

That isn't quite true.

The Spitfire MkV could be armed with 8 .303s, have cloth ailerons and a float carberator.  Fortunately it doesn't have any of that.

The Spitfire MkIX has the option for 50 cals, rockets and perhaps some bombs that it shouldn't and also lacks a float carberator. I personally think that the option for the 50 cals, rockets and incorrect bombs should be removed.

The Seafire MkIIc is, indeed, the worst possible Seafire.  It is not nuemerically representative in any way.  There were two version of the Seafire MkIIc, ours is the first that was rapidly and completely replaced by the second, superior Seafire MkIIc.  A Seafire MkIII would have been much more representative.  Such is life though, at least we have a Seafire.

[Nifty]

Ohh, hate to dig this up, but was gonna ask some stuff about our Spit V so I figured I'd see what was talked about in this thread.

Guess what?  The F. Mk IX Spitfire DID see production with the E wing, meaning our guns package in AH is correct for the type of Spitfire that we have.  The E wing on the IX's was not restricted to the low and high alt versions.  Found an obscure reference for a F Mk IXe not only existing, but actually still was flying until it crashed in August of 2000.  It was owned by the South African Air Force Museum.

Reference for it.  It's down about halfway, highlighted in black

Now granted, most F Mk IX references I found seemed to have the traditional B wing configuration.

Also, since it can be an E model wing in Aces High, I thought that E wings (and definitely C model wings) could go with 4 Hispanos...  

Just food for thought on the Spit IX armament issue...

[Karnak]

Niffty,

IIIVs, IXs and XIVs all had the "e" "universal" wing, but I cannot recal ever finding evidence of 4 20mm cannon armed Spits.

The MkVc had 4 20mm cannon and the next mark that I can think of with 4 20mm cannon is the F.21.

Many in between had the capability, but never used it operationally.

[Nifty]

Thx Karnak.  So it's kinda like when R4M talks about the LW planes in that they could be fitted a certain way, but they never were in reality, so we don't see it modelled here...  

[Nashwan]

Guess what? The F. Mk IX Spitfire DID see production with the E wing, meaning our guns package in AH is correct for the type of Spitfire that we have.

Almost certainly some F IXs had the E wing, though judging by the dates of production it can't have been many.
However, the current AH Spit IX has a Merlin 61 (so we are told) limited to 15lbs boost (though the gauge clearly shows 18lb). Only the first 350 or so Spit F IXs had a Merlin 61, all the later F IXs had a Merlin 63 with 18lb boost, and the speed increases I referred to at the start of the thread.
The E wing was late production only, whilst the last Spit F IX with a Merlin 61 was built in late 42 / early 43. As far as I can make out, very few if any of the Merlin 61 engined planes were flying after the summer of 43, almost all either crashed, shot down, transfered to training establishments, or re-engined with the Merlin 63.
A Merlin 61 engined Spit, with the performance of the AH Spit, probably only ever carried the E armament in prototype form.

[mw]

Nifty:  Someone made a typo somewhere or was sloppy.  Morgan & Shacklady list TE.213 as a late build HF IX with a Merlin 70.  

The South African Air Force Museum lists it as a LF IXE.

There might have been some Merlin 63 engined F IXs made with .50s, but I have not come across any yet.