Author Topic: 190/P-38 1 ping engine gone HAS to be FIXED (Read 2193 times)

StSanta · « **on:** August 30, 2001, 07:43:00 PM »

Man.

Lately I've had a lot of enjoyment from this sim since I've managed to ignore som discrepancies and annoyances and seen the game as just any other game - like Rogue Spear where there's a bug that'll enable to see around corners etc.

But the Golly-geened 190 1 ping from 6 o clock engine out thing is getting on my nerves real bad. Other planes have the same problem I hear.

An N1K, d900, spraying like mad. Lands one round. Radiator is ok. Oil is better than it has ever been. But the engine is kaputt, and will never fly again.

PLEASE HTC, don't just look into it. And please, don't wait for 1.08 to get out to fix it. From what I've read, 1.08 is more than 2 weeks away - maybe much more. Release an interim patch that fixes it as soon as possible. Please.

It's all well and good to add new wonderous superplanes and fill out the planeset - I agree with that. But I'd *really* appreciate if issues with existing planes would be looked into.

Ok, my first whine in about 3-4 month - since I started viewing AH like "any other game". I'd ask the cheerleaders to spare their ammo, but I gather that'd have no effect so I won't. I'll just say that this post isn't even LW specific. Other than that, I'll do my utmost not be lured in by the trolls.

Thank you for your time HTC and others.

mrfish · « **Reply #1 on:** August 30, 2001, 07:56:00 PM »

the one thing i've noticed about the 190 is it's ironic how much damage the 109 will soak up comparatively - considering what an armored beast the 190 was in reality and of course that it had a radial engine.

i think 1.08 will bring some nice changes to the damage models though. hold on santa

Tac · « **Reply #2 on:** August 30, 2001, 08:18:00 PM »

Second that!

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Tac ]

Urchin · « **Reply #3 on:** August 30, 2001, 10:43:00 PM »

I've actually noticed that to Mrfish, the 109 seems to be a tougher bird to bring down (at least when I'm flying it and people keep shooting at me). I've also had the 190 soak up some hits though, as long as the engine doesn't go it is a pretty tough plane as well.

I'd say the P38 needs to be looked at sooner- it seems to have bigger issues.

Fester' · « **Reply #4 on:** August 30, 2001, 10:47:00 PM »

please

Karnak · « **Reply #5 on:** August 31, 2001, 12:51:00 AM »

Didn't Pyro say that it was on 1.08's "to do" list?

Pepe · « **Reply #6 on:** August 31, 2001, 02:16:00 AM »

I positively confirm 1.08 is 2 weeks away, Santa.

Cheers,

Pepe

batdog · « **Reply #7 on:** August 31, 2001, 06:43:00 AM »

Hey Santa... I rem flying a fwa5 for giggles and guess what happened.... no engine from my 6 postion. I made a comment that NOW i know what the Luffy dudes are saying.

I think the Htc crew are going to fix alot of stuff this patch. I think this is why its taking so long. They are addressing alot of issues that have been on the back burner.

Your a fine pilot and a good sort of indivdual so please have some patience and look for a lost looking 205 or 47 and continue your streak of shooting my bellybutton down

xBAT

hazed- · « **Reply #8 on:** August 31, 2001, 06:57:00 AM »

just wanted to add my support for this bug to be fixed.I have also been extremely frustrated by this common occourance.

Vermillion · « **Reply #9 on:** August 31, 2001, 07:24:00 AM »

Mr.Fish wrote:

Quote

considering what an armored beast the 190 was in reality and of course that it had a radial engine

There is no such thing. Period.

"Heavily armored aircraft" is a myth.

Even the heaviest armor carried by aircraft in WWII is essentially useless against heavy machine guns rounds and cannon shells (AP or semi-AP) at typical engagement ranges. The armor was designed to stop rifle caliber bullets and shell fragments.

And if you read more about the BMW radial engine, you'll find that it was prone to engine fires due to battle damage due to its direct fuel injection (ie a fuel line running to each individual cylinder).

I'll try to find my pics I have scanned of the Fw190A8 armor layouts and thickness'.

PS: Santa this isn't to say I disagree with you, I'm just rebutting the old "the armored like a tank" myth that pops up regularly.

Vermillion · « **Reply #10 on:** August 31, 2001, 07:35:00 AM »

I found it. The armor specs on a 190.
http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-armor-1.jpg
http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-armor-2.jpg

Serapis · « **Reply #11 on:** August 31, 2001, 07:36:00 AM »

It's funny, no really. I flew the 38 on about 7 missions yesterday and lost an engine twice with a one-ping hit(with the glass tail issue at least twice with similar hits). While I can remember having this happen in other single engined aircraft It's so rare I can't remember the last time it occurred (though I have no real experience in the 190 so I'll give it a try and see what happens).

This is a joke. The 38 was one of the more rugged aircraft of the war, but in here the Zero is a tank by comparison.

Charon

Rude · « **Reply #12 on:** August 31, 2001, 08:07:00 AM »

I think it's perfectly acceptable for the 190 to puke when I shoot at it....kinda balances out that wiggly fishy floppin thingie you guys love to do

lazs1 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 31, 2001, 08:15:00 AM »

Thats fine... fix the engine if that is indeed a problem but look into the overall toughness of the 109/190 series. They seem to be the toughest planes in the game at least, against machine guns. I can down a p47 much easier. The 190's shrug off large amounts of fifty caliber. This is wrong and needs to be fixed as much as the "engine" bug.
lazs

mrfish · « **Reply #14 on:** August 31, 2001, 12:56:00 PM »

your specs only show that it was well armored.

it doesn't have to be impervious to bullets to be called well armored it just needs lots of armor. a plane with ANY armor is going to be more effective at possibly deflecting the path of a bullet, slowing it down or minimizing it's impact.

i don't disagree that 50 calibers would penetrate the armor or that the radial engine wasn't damaged when hit by a shell or on any other of those points. i will say that in having a radial engine you have a lot less damageable components and it's very arrangement can isolate damage in ways an inline can't.

having a fire start is a lot different than having an engine stop rotating 1 second after the bullet strikes.

really you are using my post as a vehicle to make a point against an argument which i am not supporting. it was well armored plane - plain and simple - there is no implication in that statement that it couldn't be damaged - only that a less armored plane like the 109 was more suseptible to damage.

it does remain ironic that a more armored plane is more susepticle to immediate engine failure than a less armored plane.

- do you have evidence that the 190 was less armored than the 109? perhaps then you'll have point. if the armor was penetratable but supplied ANY level of protection even if minimal then shouldn't that be reflected in the model?

if the 109 is in fact less armored and has a more fragile engine then logically it should suffer the one ping problem too right? or is it a symptom exclusive to radials in your learned opinion? how about the zero it is lightly armored and has a radial where's it's one ping failure?

if you are arguing that 190s were not invinceable due to their armor then i agree with you - if you are suggesting their armor was useless i have to disagree.

a sword penetrates both leather and cloth which would you like to be wearing in battle?

[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: mrfish ]