Something more realistic, less arcade.

[Tank-Ace]

  Says the guy who can't learn to read....Since when did I ever say I got my research off the history channel?

You're right, sorry, I have you confused with someone else who refuses to try to learn how the game works. It was 4brkfast I was thinking of.

[Melvin]

centrifuge data (flying limits are a little higher)

(Image removed from quote.)

http://aeromedical.org/Articles/g-loc.html

its also worth noting that a couple of AHers who have flown and taught modern fighter jets for a living think the G-LOC modelling is about right ...

Yeah, it wasn't really G-LOC that I was thinking of though.

I was thinking more along the lines of whiplash or blunt force trauma to the head type injuries.

[RufusLeaking]

I envision pilots having their heads bounced off of the canopy and other in-cockpit objects.

Pilots are strapped in. There should no contact with the canopy on negative G's.

I do agree that violent stick stirring is gamey and would be disorienting.

[FLS]

I'm sure that if any of you were being shot at you'd quickly change your mind about appropriate control inputs. 

Neg G is more of a problem after prolonged high G not after momentary high G.

Stick stirring is limited by game code. It locks your controls. Internet lag makes things look funny. 

[coombz]

Stick stirring is limited by game code. It locks your controls. Internet lag makes things look funny.  

mmmmm......I don't think any amount of 'lag makes things look funny' can excuse some of the totally ridiculous stuff I've seen doras and spit16s pull after getting on their six

btw just to be clear I don't have any strong feelings regarding this debate on pulling Gs.......if it's not totally realistic I can appreciate HiTech probably has some good reasons for that. So I'm not angling for a change to be made in any way.

I just wanted to say, in my ever so humble and inexperienced opinion, the flopping that a pilot truly dedicated to lameness can achieve (in some planes) in order to save their virtual skin, is completely absurd and can't be explained away by lag.

Can't post anything to support this as I never save the films of those kind of awful wobblers, because I'm usually so frustrated that they've got away that I hit cancel, or I don't want to know what their name was because I wouldn't be able to resist abusing them via .p  

[FLS]

mmmmm......I don't think any amount of 'lag makes things look funny' can excuse some of the totally ridiculous stuff I've seen doras and spit16s pull after getting on their six

btw just to be clear I don't have any strong feelings regarding this debate on pulling Gs.......if it's not totally realistic I can appreciate HiTech probably has some good reasons for that. So I'm not angling for a change to be made in any way.

I just wanted to say, in my ever so humble and inexperienced opinion, the flopping that a pilot truly dedicated to lameness can achieve (in some planes) in order to save their virtual skin, is completely absurd and can't be explained away by lag.

Can't post anything to support this as I never save the films of those kind of awful wobblers, because I'm usually so frustrated that they've got away that I hit cancel, or I don't want to know what their name was because I wouldn't be able to resist abusing them via .p  

You seem to be talking about your emotions instead of aeronautics or flight modeling. Not that there's anything wrong with that.   

[coombz]

I'll happily admit I'm no expert    But when you come across a dedicated d9 wobbler yourself, I'm sure you will understand what I'm saying.

[FLS]

I've actually seen one or two. It's called jinking.   

[coombz]

Hmm well I like to think I have seen, and know, what jinking to stay out of your opponents guns is...and it's not the same thing as what I mean

 

Happily it's not too common (for me at least) to run into these kind of 'pilots' 

[FLS]

It looks different when your target has more net lag than usual.

[Reaper90]

Pilots are strapped in. There should no contact with the canopy on negative G's.

Not quite. Pilots wore their harnesses loosely, so that they could move around a bit within the cockpit in order to see behind them. Neg G's would certainly raise the pilot up in the seat quite a bit, I've read a few episodes where pilots of early Bf-110's complained about the quality of the materials used in the canopy as they had put their heads through the roof of the canopy during negative g events.

[4brkfast]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZOb0vx9y9I

This is one of the best video's I've seen yet with gun cams. Want to see how a 190 actually flies? Skip to 6 minutes in. It's a circle turn fight vs a p47. And the 190 is OUT-TURNING it in a prolonged, extended fight, also you will see a solid burst hit a wing root of a p47(enough hits to argue in AH2 the p47 loses a wing). You can conclude, seeing as the later 190's had at least 2 cannons and 2 13mm that the p47's toughness is actually under modeled.

The 190 isn't correct. Nor is the 109. Hans-Joachim Marseille was reported to get kills with high deflection shooting using the flaps. Can't do that in here, much less see out of the front of a 109 like you could.

I love the P47 personally, but it's wrong, at least vs a 190(btw, look at the 190A8 charts. With 4 20mm's and 2 13mm it's weight at 100% fuel was 4400KG. Compare that to the game).

The excessive use of negative G's is frankly a laugh riot. I've seen a great deal of excessive exploitation of this flaw, particularly in a spitfire and other late war planes.

The spitfire turns better than a 109 because of it's higher wing surface ratio to fuselage and weight and the affects on the pilot would be greater because of this in a spitfire.

Which part is wrong here?

And what is there to really understand about this game? It is the way it is so people that don't understand basic flight can play, I understand that, but you can't have it both ways. It's inaccurate, therefore, it's not a simulator.

Go look at a p38 speed and climb chart ack-ack.  Frankly you disappoint me with how you responded. I expected better from a person like you, dismissive and pompous. Yes, you were esteemed in my eyes.

I was told by a couple well-known people, thrash isn't one of them, that I was wasting my time posting this stuff. That the propaganda of this game has been around too long. I see now that they're right.

wwiiaircraftperformance.org

I will never understand the point of making these planes inaccurate, to make the allied planes better than they were and the axis planes more difficult and under modeled and in some cases just flat out wrong.

Look at the stuff provided, or don't. I don't really care anymore.

<S>

[Rino]

     Looking forward to your development of a better flight sim than AH 

[Karnak]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZOb0vx9y9I

This is one of the best video's I've seen yet with gun cams. Want to see how a 190 actually flies? Skip to 6 minutes in. It's a circle turn fight vs a p47. And the 190 is OUT-TURNING it in a prolonged, extended fight, also you will see a solid burst hit a wing root of a p47(enough hits to argue in AH2 the p47 loses a wing). You can conclude, seeing as the later 190's had at least 2 cannons and 2 13mm that the p47's toughness is actually under modeled.

What were the E states of those two fighters?  What were their fuel loads?  What were their exact models?  What were the respective pilot's skill levels?  What were the angles before the gun camera starts?

Unless you can answer those questions the video tells you pretty much nothing.

The 190 isn't correct. Nor is the 109. Hans-Joachim Marseille was reported to get kills with high deflection shooting using the flaps. Can't do that in here, much less see out of the front of a 109 like you could.

Oh really?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9YVei2Yb_k
The Bf109 had a very cramped cockpit, even compared to a Spitfire.

I love the P47 personally, but it's wrong, at least vs a 190(btw, look at the 190A8 charts. With 4 20mm's and 2 13mm it's weight at 100% fuel was 4400KG. Compare that to the game).

It does seem that the Fw190A-8 in AH is over weight.  It would be nice to see that resolved.

The excessive use of negative G's is frankly a laugh riot. I've seen a great deal of excessive exploitation of this flaw, particularly in a spitfire and other late war planes.

It is gamey, but I still don't understand how Spitfires relate to it.

The spitfire turns better than a 109 because of it's higher wing surface ratio to fuselage and weight and the affects on the pilot would be greater because of this in a spitfire.

Which part is wrong here?

Erm, almost all of it.  5 Gs is 5 Gs, it doesn't matter at all how big or small your wing is.  If the Spitfire is doing a 5 G turn on the tail of a Bf109 that is doing a 5 G turn, then both pilots will be feeling 5 Gs.  If the Spitfire is able to turn tighter to try to cut the Bf109's turn, it will be pulling more Gs.  That is exactly how it works in AH.

How do you think it works?

And what is there to really understand about this game? It is the way it is so people that don't understand basic flight can play, I understand that, but you can't have it both ways. It's inaccurate, therefore, it's not a simulator.

Given that you don't understand basic flight as demonstrated above, what makes you qualified to say that?

I was told by a couple well-known people, thrash isn't one of them, that I was wasting my time posting this stuff. That the propaganda of this game has been around too long. I see now that they're right.

Nonsense.  Many changes have been made based on data brought by players.  The Bf109's motor cannon ammo was increased and the Ki-84's roll rate was increased, as examples of Axis aircraft that have benefited, based on player submitted data.

wwiiaircraftperformance.org

Great source.  

I will never understand the point of making these planes inaccurate, to make the allied planes better than they were and the axis planes more difficult and under modeled and in some cases just flat out wrong.

They don't.  If they did do you think they'd set it up so that the vaunted P-51D was lunchmeat for the Bf109K-4?

[Ack-Ack]

You're right, sorry, I have you confused with someone else who refuses to try to learn how the game works. It was 4brkfast I was thinking of.

Actually, you weren't far off the mark.  THRASH99 uses YouTube.

ack-ack