Plane Specs

[MADe]

Since so many seem to feel that there is, plane/damage modeling irregularities, I thought I'd pose this question. Not meant to be an argumentative topic, just an honest discussion. HiTech if you choose to answer question, I hope you do, hold off till others have posted a few replies.

In Aces High, does HiTech favor specific planes over others deliberately, or has Hitech established a set of parameters that have planes relationships, +/-, to each other the same as in real world?
This is not to say that overall flight/damage modeling is exactly as it is in real life, but after getting things game worthy are the planes various differences the same as real world.

S
 

[Karnak]

HiTech has always said they strive for the most accuracy they can achieve.  If errors are pointed out to them they make changes.

[EskimoJoe]

HiTech has always said they strive for the most accuracy they can achieve.  If errors are pointed out to them they make changes.

If sources can be indicated. For instance, a player was asked if they had seen a picture of bomb racks on one of our new Yaks when that player made a wishlist thread asking for them, citing other knowledge.

[Wiley]

has Hitech established a set of parameters that have planes relationships, +/-, to each other the same as in real world?

As Karnak said, HTC's said all along they are doing their best for accuracy.  Primary source material seems to be a requirement for changes to be made when players feel there's a discrepancy.

The only time relative performance between planes comes up is when players get involved in the discussion.

Wiley.

[MADe]

I take it that the topic has been discussed in past. I bring it up for myself because I am relatively new to game. Only played AH after FA died.

ME 163, my understanding is that this was a 1 way trip. Made as a fast bomber interceptor. It used a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and aluminum as fuel. Once lit it burned till the fuel was gone. I would question its throttle capabilities considering the nature of fuel.
It also took off with a drop away sled underneath, hence no landing gear. Once fuel was spent I would question its ability to glide and return to base as well. I have yet to fly it in game. But having been killed in game by them, I just wonder about their specific characteristics considering my original topic question. I have seen a channel 13 history show about them where after capture, a seasoned allied pilot flew one of them and it scared the crap out of him, he did survive the flight and landing.

ME 262, the engines in this jet had a super short life span. Whereas the design of the jet turbine was ahead of its time, the metallurgy of the day was far behind. From my little knowledge on subject, the turbine blades did not last very long, broke down with minimal usage. And they were ez kills. 1 bullet in a turbine and that motor was done. Our modern jet engines cannot even handle a bird strike muchless a bullet. So I question its apparent toughness in game as compared to radial engines and V engines designs.

Radial air cooled engines vs V water cooled engines, seen history shows where pilots mentioned the fact that the radial engine was much more durable than the V engines. The radials could and did handle bullet strikes and kept on flying where a V engine could not. I have not noticed a difference in game between engine damage to the different types of engines.

I understand its a game and choices were made for the fun aspect of the game, but because of these quite small irregularities I have mentioned, I chose to post the topic. This is not meant to be a critique of the game. Just a topic for good natured discussion. Many of the different planes provided do exhibit different flight characteristics. But not being a real pilot I wonder about the overall differences between planes and wondered if some planes have been given a particular enhancement that they never had in the whole scheme of things.
S
 

[Arlo]

Since so many seem to feel that there is, plane/damage modeling irregularities, I thought I'd pose this question. Not meant to be an argumentative topic, just an honest discussion. HiTech if you choose to answer question, I hope you do, hold off till others have posted a few replies.

In Aces High, does HiTech favor specific planes over others deliberately, or has Hitech established a set of parameters that have planes relationships, +/-, to each other the same as in real world?
This is not to say that overall flight/damage modeling is exactly as it is in real life, but after getting things game worthy are the planes various differences the same as real world.

S
 

Really?

[Karnak]

I take it that the topic has been discussed in past. I bring it up for myself because I am relatively new to game. Only played AH after FA died.

Asking questions is good.

ME 163, my understanding is that this was a 1 way trip. Made as a fast bomber interceptor. It used a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and aluminum as fuel. Once lit it burned till the fuel was gone. I would question its throttle capabilities considering the nature of fuel.
It also took off with a drop away sled underneath, hence no landing gear. Once fuel was spent I would question its ability to glide and return to base as well. I have yet to fly it in game. But having been killed in game by them, I just wonder about their specific characteristics considering my original topic question. I have seen a channel 13 history show about them where after capture, a seasoned allied pilot flew one of them and it scared the crap out of him, he did survive the flight and landing.

The Me163 did have a throttle.  After take off the wheeled cart is dropped and it lands on its skid, gliding back to base.  That is how they operated in WWII, to the limited degree that they operated at all.

ME 262, the engines in this jet had a super short life span. Whereas the design of the jet turbine was ahead of its time, the metallurgy of the day was far behind. From my little knowledge on subject, the turbine blades did not last very long, broke down with minimal usage. And they were ez kills. 1 bullet in a turbine and that motor was done. Our modern jet engines cannot even handle a bird strike muchless a bullet. So I question its apparent toughness in game as compared to radial engines and V engines designs.

Me262 engines had about 10 hours of life.  This isn't really relevant to AH given we get a new airplane each time we up.  In AH the Jumo turbojet's limitations are modeled by having slow throttle response and being very fragile.  I have personally lost an engine on an Me262 to a single hit from a 7.7mm gun on a D3A1.

Radial air cooled engines vs V water cooled engines, seen history shows where pilots mentioned the fact that the radial engine was much more durable than the V engines. The radials could and did handle bullet strikes and kept on flying where a V engine could not. I have not noticed a difference in game between engine damage to the different types of engines.

I am not sure about the amount of damage the engine itself can take in AH, but inline engines have an additional resource that can be hit, the radiator, that radial engined aircraft lack.  That alone makes them a bit tougher.

I understand its a game and choices were made for the fun aspect of the game, but because of these quite small irregularities I have mentioned, I chose to post the topic. This is not meant to be a critique of the game. Just a topic for good natured discussion. Many of the different planes provided do exhibit different flight characteristics. But not being a real pilot I wonder about the overall differences between planes and wondered if some planes have been given a particular enhancement that they never had in the whole scheme of things.
S
 

Bringing up concerns and questions in a calm manner is never a bad thing.

[Brooke]

The radial air-cooled engines are much, much tougher than the liquid-cooled ones in AH.

The air-cooled engines have no radiator, so that mode of damage and engine failure is completely removed.

Even when the air-cooled engines get an oil leak, they generally take much longer before failure compared to the in-line engines.

[asterix]

ME 163, my understanding is that this was a 1 way trip. Made as a fast bomber interceptor. It used a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and aluminum as fuel. Once lit it burned till the fuel was gone. I would question its throttle capabilities considering the nature of fuel.
It also took off with a drop away sled underneath, hence no landing gear. Once fuel was spent I would question its ability to glide and return to base as well. I have yet to fly it in game. But having been killed in game by them, I just wonder about their specific characteristics considering my original topic question. I have seen a channel 13 history show about them where after capture, a seasoned allied pilot flew one of them and it scared the crap out of him, he did survive the flight and landing.

Where does that info come from? The Me163B used a liquid fuel rocket engine. Instead of aluminum it had a liquid fuel called the C-Stoff. Maybe you are talking about the A version or something. If I remember correctly the Comet glided very well and it had a retractable landing skid and tailwheel for landing.

[Widewing]

The radial air-cooled engines are much, much tougher than the liquid-cooled ones in AH.

The air-cooled engines have no radiator, so that mode of damage and engine failure is completely removed.

Even when the air-cooled engines get an oil leak, they generally take much longer before failure compared to the in-line engines.

In 1977, flying out of GTMO in our C-131F,we suffered a lost cylinder on my #2 R-2800 shortly after getting the wheels up. We were damn close to max takeoff weight. I watched the temps and pressures, and seeing no significant change, we kept the motor online until we flew the pattern, landed and turned off the runway. Checking the oil tank later, I found that the big P&W was down only about 2 to 3 gallons from full. That two plus gallons still made an impressive mess. I know of no other piston aircraft engine that can absorb as much damage and keep chugging along as the R-2800.

[Mongoose]

1 bullet in a turbine and that motor was done. Our modern jet engines cannot even handle a bird strike muchless a bullet. So I question its apparent toughness in game as compared to radial engines and V engines designs.

  I wouldn't necessarily say it is tough.  The one time I killed a 262, I got a lucky hit at long range in one of the engines.  Smoked it right away.  Then we were able to catch up and knock it down.

[lyric1]

ME 262, the engines in this jet had a super short life span. Whereas the design of the jet turbine was ahead of its time, the metallurgy of the day was far behind. From my little knowledge on subject, the turbine blades did not last very long, broke down with minimal usage. And they were ez kills. 1 bullet in a turbine and that motor was done. Our modern jet engines cannot even handle a bird strike muchless a bullet. So I question its apparent toughness in game as compared to radial engines and V engines designs.

Was going to start another thread for this? However this looks to be the perfect location for one of my pet peeves. That would be the jet engine in AHII & in particular the AR-234B. I have had a few issues with the toughness of this bird in AHII & one or two other points on this aircraft. I will stay focused on the engine for now. I know this is an old design model & I hope to see it changed in the future when this aircraft will see an eventual update.

I would think that a 37MM high explosive round through the jet intake would be an immediate catastrophic failure of that said engine. After all most single piston engine's in AHII are almost certain of an instant death or loss of engine power at least from an Ostwind round to their engine.

 

How ever the jet engine still keeps going & allows the pilot to get on the ground before the loss of power.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/j2m55uc1o2hjwbt/jet_engine_strength.ahf

The film shows I tagged the Arado with an Ostwind on final approach & the round was right through the engine nacelle opening.

As you can see in this photo of an engine that it is tight space with a lot of moving parts.












The fan blades are interesting to me & it is funny what you can find on EBAY from time to time. A Jumo engine blade for sale notice they are hollow?
This was a surprise to me & very much reinforces  MADe's point in his post above that jet engines of the day were not like what we have today.  If geese can kill engines ingested through the engine nacelle's on a modern jet???? Well you know what I think with a 37MM HE round.











So if not now or at least when this airframe gets an update make the engines a little more glass like & not the tank steel they seem to have now.

[Brooke]

Lyric, that's a lot of work for something that was probably a fluke.

I would bet that 99 times out of 100 (or more), such a hit would blow up the engine.  Every once in a while in AH, something like that happens, but it is a rare exception, not the rule.  I suspect it might have to do with code that checks for hits vs. some parameter and throws out hits that look suspicious by some simple metric, resulting occasionally in a solid hit from the shooter's point of view doing no damage.

For example, few people would complain about a P-51 being immune to 30 mm hits from 109K-4's.  Yet here, I put one 30 mm round into the cockpit and one onto the left wing.  The P-51 just shrugged it off without any problem.



That is far from typical, though, and in fact a different P-51 in the same fight took one 30 mm to the tail and one to the wing, and both parts immediately were blown off, which *is* typical.

[lyric1]

Lyric, that's a lot of work for something that was probably a fluke.

I would bet that 99 times out of 100 (or more), such a hit would blow up the engine.  Every once in a while in AH, something like that happens, but it is a rare exception, not the rule.  I suspect it might have to do with code that checks for hits vs. some parameter and throws out hits that look suspicious by some simple metric, resulting occasionally in a solid hit from the shooter's point of view doing no damage.

For example, few people would complain about a P-51 being immune to 30 mm hits from 109K-4's.  Yet here, I put one 30 mm round into the cockpit and one onto the left wing.  The P-51 just shrugged it off without any problem.

(Image removed from quote.)

That is far from typical, though, and in fact a different P-51 in the same fight took one 30 mm to the tail and one to the wing, and both parts immediately were blown off, which *is* typical.

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

I put it down to the old AHII model. Here are a couple of other examples of the damage model being a little off on the AR-234B from Ostwind rounds.

Solid hit to the aileron. Result?
Nothing.


Two hits in the fuselage & well the pictures speak for themselves.
















Happy landings after a lengthy flight.

[Grendel]

ME 163, my understanding is that this was a 1 way trip. Made as a fast bomber interceptor. It used a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and aluminum as fuel. Once lit it burned till the fuel was gone. I would question its throttle capabilities considering the nature of fuel.
It also took off with a drop away sled underneath, hence no landing gear. Once fuel was spent I would question its ability to glide and return to base as well.

ME 262, the engines in this jet had a super short life span. Whereas the design of the jet turbine was ahead of its time, the metallurgy of the day was far behind.

Incorret about 163 and 262, both.
163's engine had throttle. Nothing mysterious about it.
And it was designed as glider. The earlier versions were delightful gliders and so was the operational version. One newly built 163 flies in European airshows as glider, even these days.

262, nothing mysterious about the metallurgy. It was fully to the specs.
The problem was the raw materials. While the prototype engine's turbine blades had 50+ hours life cycle, the *first* serial built engines had those 10 hour blades, as there was no necessary heat resistant metals available in quantinty to make them properly. This was quickly remedied and the Jumo 004 blades had later much higher, 50-80 hours cycle. When the turbine blades reached their cycle end, the engines were overhauled, blades replaced and engine used again.

G