Author Topic: Testing the n1k (Read 2595 times)

bowser · « **Reply #15 on:** December 04, 2000, 08:28:00 PM »

Not to ruin a good N1K whine

...but there are several planes that can do the same thing in AH..and much easier. So if you have a beef, it's with the AH FM, not the N1K.
Having said that, can anybody reading this thread that actually knows about the "real thing", tell us that the real versions of the N1K, Spit, Zero, etc. couldn't do this?

bowser

brady · « **Reply #16 on:** December 04, 2000, 08:32:00 PM »

Gentlemen a question for my more learned brethren,how would the automatic flap system affect the planes ability to do such "continuous looping"?....in other words does this help to make it so?
Also were these test done with WEP?, if so would this not explain it's stellar low level performance, at least compared to some of the other fighters who don't preform so well at lower altitude?

Brady

wells · « **Reply #17 on:** December 04, 2000, 08:35:00 PM »

A plane will gain e if it is flying below it's maximum sustained turning speed, no matter how much you pull on the stick.

juzz · « **Reply #18 on:** December 04, 2000, 09:06:00 PM »

George made the wings fall off my plane! Witchcraft! Burn him!

funked · « **Reply #19 on:** December 04, 2000, 09:19:00 PM »

Juzz ROFL

Jigster · « **Reply #20 on:** December 04, 2000, 10:16:00 PM »

Best bet to really tell if the N1K2 is porked lies within the auto-combat-flap system.

Historically, this is what allowed it's insane manuverability, i.e. minimum pilot load, he didn't have to monitor them to use them to his advantage.

Given that most flaps produce noticable drag once deflected past a certain degree point I think there in lies the problem.

But without any hard data on how exactlly the auto-system worked, it's hard to draw a judgement on them. At the time, they were said to be "the most advanced flap system ever used during the war" but that is of little help.

However, even with the automatic flap system apparently in place within AH, there is still manual flap system (and a hinged flap given how it deploys in AH, as were the auto-flaps) that does offer mostly drag that does not appear to be correct. I have heard the N1K2 had a split flap system as well, that was part of the combat flaps, but I really have no clue if it did. That and manual flaps you can watch deploy are NOT split flaps.

I believe this could be a left over from when we had flaps that contributed no lift and has simply never been revisited with the N1K2 since we finally did get correct flaps, for one reason or another, and the N1K2's flap system was so much different then the most of the other planes. The problem also seems to be there with the 109, while not as big of deal, but I would like to have the plane shudder as the slats popped out

- Jig

fscott · « **Reply #21 on:** December 04, 2000, 10:44:00 PM »

I think what we have here as someone has already stated is a E-retention problem with AH itself. Compare this to WB and tell me which one is accurate? Didn't HiTech also program WB? Was he accurate then? Is he accurate now?

I don't think any one plane is intentionally overmodelled, rather I think HT just needs to work on his E-retention code so that all planes will be affected equally.

Strange you can do some amazing maneuvers in AH that you could never think about doing in WB, yet it was programmed by the same guy....

fscott

Maverick · « **Reply #22 on:** December 04, 2000, 11:18:00 PM »

Hi there,

I don't get involved much in FM disputes but this one caught my eye. I got the film and looked at it. I had tried it and couldn't duplicate it until I watched the film again. Then I noticed that the takeoff was very long on the ground, meaning no auto takeoff. I also saw combat trim was not lit. So I went back and decided to try again. I held the planes on the ground until gear started to groan (almost all at 170mph except for the F4), then pulled back while the gear was coming up.

Guess what! I could do it in the niki. I also did it in the following planes.

LA5
Yak
109G10
109G6
190A5
190A8 (very sloppy here)
Spit V
Spit9
P38L (everyone's favorite turn fighter)

F4UD (I won't do the C!)

Typhoon (yep even the tiffie did it)

I didn't try others as I was getting bored doing this. Each fighter did at least 3 loops before I intentionally augered. Nt all the loops were pretty but they were controllable. There is a technique but it is easy to learn. It would have to be for me to be able to do it. I did this in TA and not offline. I didn't film it but anyone can duplicate it. Just be smooth and have a non spikey stick. Rudders WILL be needed for at least a couple of the planes including the Niki.

Gee, I guess this means ALL the FM's are porked.

Guess it's time for a new whine......

Mav

brady · « **Reply #23 on:** December 04, 2000, 11:45:00 PM »

Well done Maverick

Brady

funked · « **Reply #24 on:** December 05, 2000, 12:22:00 AM »

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 12-05-2000).]

bloom25 · « **Reply #25 on:** December 05, 2000, 01:26:00 AM »

I guess there's a few bugs to iron out with the new FMs. With such major changes in the last revision this isn't too unexpected. I honestly don't think any of the planes (except maybe the zero) should be able to do this, E just isn't being lost very fast. I'm thinking maybe it's because torque doesn't make you lose control like it did <1.03. I tried the p51, but couldn't get it to do this continual looping trick, so I just assumed the majority of the set couldn't do it.

My intention wasn't to post another whine thread without any evidence to back it up. Instead I wanted to post evidence and let others come to a conclusion. I think AH has, for the most part, excellent FMs. There are, IMO, a few bugs that need fixed in the E retention department.

------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS

gatt · « **Reply #26 on:** December 05, 2000, 01:32:00 AM »

Your film was not well developed, then your a bunch of whiners.

And no, endless loops at low speed and flip turns dont affect at all the arena dogfighting style.

Again, your a bunch of misinformed whiners. Stop it or you'll be burned by witch-hunters and BBS cops.

------------------
Gatt
4° Stormo Caccia - Knights
Macchi C.202's sting (1,9MByte film)

funked · « **Reply #27 on:** December 05, 2000, 02:24:00 AM »

Fscott, last I checked, the WB P-38L would loop off the runway and loop indefinitely thereafter... with 100 % fuel and 2 x 1000 lb bombs.

In any case using other flight sims as references is not productive. The only references of value are real life flight tests and engineering analysis.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 12-05-2000).]

Jekyll · « **Reply #28 on:** December 05, 2000, 02:27:00 AM »

Quote

A plane will gain e if it is flying below it's maximum sustained turning speed, no matter how much you pull on the stick.

OK wells, so a Spit IX has a sustained turn speed of, say, 160 mph. I'm tooling along in a Spit IX at 150, and go into a hard horizontal left bank and pull the stick back in my gut.

And I'll GAIN energy?

Now for the FM question

Personally, I have no problems with the FM's of any of the AH aircraft... but I DO have a real problem with the pilot modelling. Never having flown a high performance piston engined aircraft, I'll defer to those on this board who have.

So tell me, what would be the effect on the pilot (disorientation, g-loc etc) of doing 27 consecutive 5g loops?

I have a sneaking suspicion the real problem is twofold:

1. The aircraft don't have the particular vices the real aircraft used to have.
2. The pilots are uber in so far as they have unlimited strength and g recovery abilities. Fer gawd sake.... even ASir Warrior had cumulative G effects back in 1985... but we don't have similar effects in a year 2000 sim?

------------------
=357th Pony Express=
Aces High Training Corps

[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 12-05-2000).]

RAM · « **Reply #29 on:** December 05, 2000, 02:36:00 AM »

Ok, so the much praised and realistic 1.04 FM seems wrong as a whole?...

Really, HTC, why not give a step back and recover 1.03 until the current FM is REALLY ready to be implemented?...methinks it was MORE realistic than 1.04 even with the high e-burning.

(I'm completely serious in this thing. with 1.03 maybe planes did burn too much E but at least you rarely saw SUCH roadkill moves as are seen in 1.04. For realism sake, please bring back 1.03 FM until the new FM is fixed!!!)

Quote

Originally posted by wells:
A plane will gain e if it is flying below it's maximum sustained turning speed, no matter how much you pull on the stick.

A plane that is pulling a 5G turn and still gains E...Nikis have afterburner?

I guess you are kidding wells, I am currently flying falcon4 (RP4), and let me assure you, at 170mph and 5G turn, and with A DAMNED AFTERBURNER in my tail, if I keep pulling I DONT ACCELERATE!

And nikis can do it?! ROFLOL!...roadkill, I say.

BTW I agree on the flap thing. If combat flaps are modelled, then model the drag too. If the drag is not modelled, then dont model the automatic flaps.

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick:
Typhoon (yep even the tiffie did it)

Only by reading this I know the 1.04 FM has a serious trouble, and not related to the high E-keeping of the planes.

A tiffie doing a loop just after a takeoff??? LOL!!!!!!! Thats plain ridiculous.!
In real life, a tiffie whould play the helicopter trying to do "that" (if it doesnt crash into the right side hangars of the airfield on the takeoff, I mean

)

The lack of torque is another BS thing in the new FM.

I am serious, 1.04 is SERIOUSLY FLAWED. if not in E-retaining (that imo it clearly is), for sure it is in torque modelling. PLEASE bring back 1.03 FM until the new FM is correctly modelled.

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-05-2000).]