Commentary by a P-40 ACE

[fire_ant]

Boy I can feel the love in here...

 

Originally posted by Kieren:
Again, I have to disagree. This comment would suggest that developers intentionally "dumb-down" planes to make their preferred aircraft sparkle in comparison. Unfortunately, this is not the first time this has been stated here.


I'm not at all accusing anyone of doing this in any malicious sense, or to make their preferred aircraft "sparkle".  That is really a juvenile idea.

I'm certainly not accusing HTC of doing anything like that either.  They don't have a P40 in here yet.  From what I can tell so far of the few times I've played AH online (my first kill today, woo hooo!) it's a fantastic game with a community of supporters which seems, with a few notable exceptions, to be well intentioned, well informed, interested in military history and avaition, and very nice people.

My point is that in the process of developing historical games, something I have some experience with, one can base  technical modeling on two things: statistical information in the form of techincal specifications like wing loading etc., and historical information which can be used as to kind of double-check.

I'm sure as these sims develop they rely much more on accurate technical specs and less on subjective historical anecdotes, but no system based purely on the numbers works 100%.  And if I was, for example, developing a game and my numbers say indicated that a Me 210 was a stable and agile aircraft, I would recheck my figures, and if I couldn't make the system do it, I would change the numebrs some because I know from history that the 210 didn't perform very well.  Unless you have the actual aircraft on hand to test you will have to rely on this to some extent.

Having said that I have noticed that through the generations of WW II flight sims I have played, the P40 gets better and better with each more realistic incarnation, apparently to the surprise of the developers.  

Just read the developers notes about the P40 in Warbirds... they describe it as performing "surprisingly" well.  

And yet I've seen some evidence that warbirds may have undermodeled the roll and turn rates of P40's.  I just raised the possibility that this might be due to the bad historical record of the plane, which I think unlike the case of the Me 210, is largely undeserved.  Thats why I posted all this commentary from WWII pilots familiar with the aircraft which seems to counterract the common opinion.


What does HTC have to gain to dumb-down anything? Especially an aircraft as ubiquitous as the P-40, the fighter available in the most numbers in the early part of the war, and one that served in every theatre of action?


Again, I'm not accusing HTC of anything, AH sems like a very realisitc system.  But I think if I didn't know better and I was a desiginer I might do it myself to make the game more histoically accurate.


I think it is great you have a favorite aircraft, and hope HTC models it some day. I have a feeling, based on what you've written, that you won't like it when they do. I hope I am wrong.  

This is cute.  Well, I do like the P40 but it's not my "favorite aircraft".  I have a suspicion you might have one which I have somehow slighted somewhere.  Personally I am intersted in WW II history and aviation, and am something of a revisionist.  

I am also very interested in what these "games" can show historians in terms of fleshing out the war in actual 4 dimenstional models, which can really sheed a lot of light on what it was really like.

In the past I used to often argue the merits of the Hawker Hurricane, the Ki-43 Oscar, Japanese late war fighters in general, and the various Italian fighters.  These have largely been vindicated in the field, now I'm trying to see what I can recover of the P-40 and P-39 reputations, because frankly history of the air war in WW II makes a lot more sense if they are better than some pilots and a lot of historians made them out to be.

I think I see the writing on the wall that a more realistic assesement of these planes is begnning to percolate in.  Who know what is next, I might even take on the Brewster Buffalo, the Finns seemed to do very bloody well with it!  

Meanwhile, I hope AH models the P40, I'm sure I'll like the way it turns out.  I like the P40 in Warbirds, for that matter.

DB

[Kieren]

We seem doomed to remain at odds- you don't seem to understand what I am trying to tell you, and worse seem to think I am trying to offend you. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You haven't slighted my favorite aircraft, as I don't have one. Really.

You can post as much anecdotal data as you like, and I really enjoy reading it.

You have stated what you would do if you were a game designer. Fair enough.

The point I was actually trying to caution you against was the seeming intimation that either game producers (HTC included) are ignorant or intentionally fudge their numbers to make them match their vision of history. I don't know how long you have played AH or WB, or frequented either board, but I think I can be safe in assuring you that no intentional fudging happens in either sim. Their market has been for the hardcore realist, and fudging the numbers alienates the crowd they are after. You should also know that, despite their reputations for striving for the most realistic flight models on the market, both AH and WB have been accused of doing exactly what I felt you were hinting at.

Sorry I don't know of your past. The first exposure I have had to you is in this forum, and so far you have multiple wall-o-text posts on the P-40. Perhaps I jumped the gun to assume it is your favorite plane. Please accept my apology. However, based on the picture you paint of the P-40, I assumed you would go over the flight model with a fine-toothed comb. And, as you illustrate with the WB P-40 comment on roll rate, you likely would find something you didn't like. Does that sound fair?

I also feel I have offended you with my opinion of the plane (which differs from yours). I thought you wanted to discuss them- am I wrong?

[Kieren]

 

Boy I can feel the love in here...

By the way, I am in no way trying to have a flame war with you. My comments have all been made to you with respect and good intentions in mind. Sorry you seem to have taken them the wrong way.  

[fire_ant]

 

Originally posted by Kieren:


You have stated what you would do if you were a game designer. Fair enough.



very subtle... thanks friend


The point I was actually trying to caution you against was the seeming intimation that either game producers (HTC included) are ignorant or intentionally fudge their numbers to make them match their vision of history.


Look Kieran, the point isn't so much that you "fudge" numbers arbitrarily to advance "Your vision" of history.  The reality is that in any model based on techincial specifications, there is a certain amount of room for interpretation, and also certain points where your model will break down.  I don't care how much technical data you get, roll rates, engine performance, stick resistance etc.,  THere is no data model anywhere which can fully model an aircrafts performance at all speeds, all altitudes in all atmospheric conditions... ok? There is always some room for interpretation of the numbers.  This is what I'm speaking of.  Only GOD could create a truly 'perfect' simulation.


I don't know how long you have played AH or WB, or frequented either board, but I think
(snip)
Their market has been for the hardcore realist, and fudging the numbers alienates the crowd they are after. You should also know that, despite their reputations for striving for the most realistic flight models on the market, both AH and WB have been accused of doing exactly what I felt you were hinting at.


Sigh..

Pyro, could you help me out here?  Maybe you could shed a little more realistic light on the process...

Kieran I'm sure the designers or WB and AH are very professional and make the best efforts possible, thats why these sims are so interesting to me because I think they DO make a very good effort.  How close this gets to reality at this point is another matter... they DO make mistakes, don't they?  I seem to remember massive changes in some flight models, such as the early P-38' in WB, as well as many others.  There is always a certain amount of reinterpretation of data going on along these lines, when questions of both balance and especially, historical reference.  If you have Brewster Buffalos consistantly shooting down zeroes, you got a problem don't you?  You may find out later you missed something in the technical data. But what do you do in the meantime, just leave the killer F2A dominating the whole game to the ridicule of the world or what?


Sorry I don't know of your past. The first exposure I have had to you is in this forum, and so far you have multiple wall-o-text posts on the P-40. Perhaps I jumped the gun

Actually I've posted wall-o-text posts on many subjects, angering people in various other airplane tank threads even here on this BBS...


I also feel I have offended you with my opinion of the plane (which differs from yours). I thought you wanted to discuss them- am I wrong?

To my knowlege you never did offer any opinion on the P40, so how could I be offended?

DB

[Kieren]

The reason I think I have offended you is the backhanded comments you have made toward me.

 

I'm not trying to say a P40 is better than a P38. You are arguing with the ace i quoted, no doubt you know more than he did, he only had 11 kills in real life while you probably have hundreds of virtuals.

I chose to ignore them initially, because I felt perhaps I had been too confrontational in my original post on the thread. Of course, I have apologized over and over for being offensive (albeit unintentionally), but you seem to have the same stance. I don't think I should post any more on your threads, as I can't see where the continued antagonistic tone is coming from. You're biting comments with me tell me you don't really want to discuss, you want to lecture.

BTW, you said I didn't offer an opinion on the P-40? Here it is:

Look at any technical references you wish- any at all. What you see over and over is an aircraft whose altitude, range, and climb were inferior to almost every single fighter it faced. That the Americans used it so long is due more to the fact it was available in numbers when anything that could fly was needed. As soon as aircraft with better performance were available, the P-40 was relegated to other duties. And, to quote myself from earlier in the thread:

 

Not trying to pee in your Wheaties, and I would love to see and fly a P-40, but it was an obsolescent aircraft in 1941. It is no match whatsoever for anything we have in the game, not even the 202. The only possible P-40 worth modeling as a fighter would be the P-40N.

With that, I am out on this thread. I am not angry, but this is not constructive, this has become about our personalities.

[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 08-02-2000).]

[Pyro]

FireAnt, just an FYI, but the person who did the flight characteristics for the P-40 in WB is the same person who will be doing it for the P-40 in AH.

But you are correct that interpretation does have to be done and in the end, it comes down to my interpretation.  There is, always has been, and probably always will be talk of bias on our part.  The thing I find ironic about that whole situation is that the people who claim a bias on developers are usually the ones with the huge bias and a not-so-hidden agenda.  But I'm certainly fallible and when we do find we have any legitimate problems, we do our best to correct them if possible.  

As for the debate between you and Kieren, you guys aren't debating anything, you're just misunderstanding each other.  In fact, now that I think about it, I'm not sure I understand either.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

[fire_ant]

Originally posted by Pyro:
FireAnt, just an FYI, but the person who did the flight characteristics for the P-40 in WB is the same person who will be doing it for the P-40 in AH.


This is good news for two reasons, 1) it sounds like we will be getting a P40 in AH after all (any hint as to what model(s)?) and 2) as I posted already in this thread, I like the P-40 in Warbirds so I'll prolly like it in AH a lot too...


But you are correct that interpretation does have to be done and in the end, it comes down to my interpretation.  There is, always has been, and probably always will be talk of bias on our part.  


Kieren seems to think that this was what I was implying.  I thought it was clear that I felt the degree that interpretations are  made in this type of simulation, and the cause of any mistakes if any mistakes are ever made, was from the point of view of trying to be historically accurate, not biased for chrissake.  

I have done some work in this field myself and I have some idea  how it works.  I evidently failed in explaining my point.
Perhaps I am too caught up in the excitement of seeing this game in it's early stages of development, and with the universal feeling around here that it's being done RIGHT for a change.
I didn't really want to start a huge debate I just wanted to present some alternative history on the planes I was talking about... in order to counteract the already strong bad "conventional wisdom" reputations they (p40 and p39) had as amply expressed by Kieren.  

I'd like to see a lot of planes in a lot of parts of the war that were little known about, the more new areas opened up in flight sims (like the Italian fighters, which was a big crusade of mine in AW) always fascinates me and reignights my interest in the genre.

I love history and I'm a bit of a revisionist about some of the conventional wisdom about these things, somewhat in the tradition of the historian Paul Fussell.


The thing I find ironic about that whole situation is that the people who claim a bias on developers are usually the ones with the huge bias and a not-so-hidden agenda.  


I certainly hope I didn't come across like "one of them", like I was claiming a bias on the part of AH or warbirds for that matter.  I did say I had seen evidence that I thought the warbirds model was off some, but none of the models in any of these games can be perfect, and even if they were perfect you could still find data somewhere which seemed to refute them.  The fact is they get better with every generation.  Anyway I don't have an agenda hidden or otherwise, except to have a really clear idea of the history of WW II.  If all I wanted was a sim with fake uber p40's I could make my own or hack a version of warbirds or something.  That would be a bit megalamaniacal though!

Basically this is a really interesting sim and every time I play this, just as when I played WB before and even (to a lesser degree) AW before that, I learn more about what WW II was like.  I think as Historical scenarios get better, more balanced and more fine tuned, and as these games continue to become more realisitc, their value as simulations and not just "games" will become more and more evident.  These things are HARD CORE realistic already, imagine what they will be like in 5 or ten years.

Anyway I like this game a lot, and for that matter I like this BBS, so much in fact and I made the mistake of thinking I could play a role in some of the research which went into making the game.  Hurbis for which I now consider myself duly punished.


But I'm certainly fallible and when we do find we have any legitimate problems, we do our best to correct them if possible.  


I'm not the griping type, I don't think I ever made it sound like I was griping, I kept my argument in a general sense.  In fact I may have had questions about flight models in other games but I never squeaked about them, I'm not a 'rules' lawyer, I'm interested in history.  As long as there is still development going on on one of these games (and it hasn't been just frozen to make proffits higher as in some previous sims) mistakes will eventually be found and fixed, without my help.  I hope I have made that clear, at least to some people reading this.

Anyway if I have had any effect at all on the fate of the P40 in this game I'm sure it has been negative at this point since I have pissed so many people off, so I will hereby shut my mouth on the subject from here on in!


As for the debate between you and Kieren, you guys aren't debating anything, you're just misunderstanding each other.  In fact, now that I think about it, I'm not sure I understand either.  
 

me either.  I think some of it is the emotional opacity of email.  Sometimes a friendly jab can appear to be a snide retort, or visa versa.  
Sometimes I feel like I'm explaining an argument or a point in good faith and then other people are just contradicting me for the hell of it!  But I know I can be a bit acid penned as it were, it just springs from my enthusiasm of this subject.  
Unfotrunately I don't know a whole lot of people in real life with whom I can get into really hard core technical discussions of history in general let alone historical military hardware, (god knows my girlfriend doesn't want to hear about it!) so when I find a venue like this I can tend to gush somewhat.
Anyway I didn't mean to piss anyone off THAT much  (Image removed from quote.)  No point unless you are in a pub and can settle it!  Lol Just kidding.

DB

[Downtown]

I have an agenda, PLEASE PYRO DO THE "B"

Like this

 

I really like the P-40 and want it in the sim.

THanks.

------------------

"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
    lkbrown1@tir.com    
 http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!

[Major Tom]

I'd like to see a P-40

I'd also like to see it's historical rival the Japanese He-100/Bf.109...err I mean Ki-61  

[AKDejaVu]

<Shameless P-40 Bump>

AKDejaVu

[Torgo]

Actually, I think the issue isn't that the P-40 has been underrated, it's that it's opponents have been overrated.

The overwhelming majority of Flying Tiger fighter kills were obsolete Ki-27 Nates (with fixed landing gear)..they never even saw a Zero, and fairly limited numbers of Ki-43s. And I'm sure many of the P-39 and P-40 kills in other units were Ki-27s.


And (I'll get flamed for this) I think even the Zero is somewhat overrated.  Despite having perhaps the best-trained pilots, across the board, in the world at the beginning of 42 (I'm sure individual LW experten in 42 were better, but not the LW across the board) once you get past the massacre of poorly trained British Buffaloes and assorted Dutch pieces of crap, US kill ratios vs. Zeros in Wildcats and such were pretty good..BEFORE all the good Japanese pilots were killed. And before the Hellcat and P-38 and such show up and make the kill ratios even worse.

This suggests to me that the Zero wasn't the all-conquering early war uberplane it's made out to be.


[This message has been edited by Torgo (edited 02-08-2001).]

[Widewing]

 

Originally posted by Kieren:
There is a difference in meaning between the words "Obsolete" and "Obsolescent". "Obsolete" means you are completely outclassed and have no chance, "Obsolescent" means you have tipped the scales heavily in favor of the opponent.

I wouldn't argue whether the P-40 turns better in WB than the P-38. I wouldn't play that game. I would stay above you, and every time you tried to run I would hit you and pull up. Once I was above you, there isn't a thing you could do but evade.

This isn't a challenge, and don't take it as such. I am only saying that, if I use the trump cards of speed and climb, the P-38 wins hands-down. Surely you can see what I am saying?

Think of the P-40 as an underpowered Fw 190. Why? Because that's how she flys. Roll rate is fantastic. If your P-38 was a J-20 or earlier model, the P-40 could do just as the 190 did and split-s into a dive that the P-38 could not follow. Granted, the P-40 doesn't climb worth a hoot, but it turns, rolls and dives pretty darn well. Generally speaking, the airframe is tougher than the P-51 and it has the same armament as the P-51D or the F4U-1. If you remember never to fight the way your enemy fights best, the P-40 can give a good acount of itself against any of the early war competition. For that matter, a lot of guys flying the late war aircraft will find themselves with their hands very full tangling with a well flown Curtiss. I'd take a P-40 (any model) over a Zero or Oscar any day of the week.

My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

 

Originally posted by Downtown:
I have an agenda, PLEASE PYRO DO THE "B"

Your image shows a Curtiss H81A-3. This was not a P-40B, or a P-40C, or even a Tomahawk IIA or IIB. It was a unique version cobbled together by Curtiss, using serial numbers first assigned to a British order of Tomahawk IIBs. Want to know more about the oddball Chinese Tomahawks? Let me know and I'll post more this evening (no time for it now).

My regards,

Widewing

[BUG_EAF322]

I would love to see one in the MA  
hell i won a fight once against a me 109 in a TBM   so why can't this

But would it outurn the P38-L with fowler flaps ?
 
Yeah the P-40 is a cool plane and i would fly it once in a while  

[Jimdandy]

On the P-39. I knew a man that flew the F4F, F6F, and the F4U. When I asked him which one he would like to have if he could own one now he said "None, the P-39". Now we were talking about civilian use and not combat. But he loved the way the P-39 flew. It was the first fighter he flew in flight school and he always liked it. As for the aircraft he flew in combat he liked the F6F the best. I also talked to two guys that flew P-51's and P-38's in ETO and they said basically the same thing with the qualification of it's terrible spin recovery, poor high alt performance and it made one nerves to have that 37mm firing between his legs.    

[This message has been edited by Jimdandy (edited 02-08-2001).]