place your vote... fix the turn rates in AH?

[Citabria]

I think Lazs should get a grip

[Saintaw]

 

Originally posted by Badger:
What a waste of energy and I for one, am tired of the professorial approach to what is simply a GAME that's supposed to be about camaraderie and fun.Regards,
Badger

That makes two of us Badger, I think poeple here tend to forget that...

Saw

[Fury]

I'd rather have stability and pretend everything is ok.

BTW the warps in WB are not because of turn rates.  The warps are due to other things such as connections, poor servers, and the way the code is written.

Fury

[Wanker]

C'mon Lazs, we all know that you're hiding your old "my plane is porked" message inside of a thread where you pretend that you actually care about other planes' turning radius.

You have always thought the F4U was porked in WB, and IMHO, you will always think it's porked no matter what the programmer's do to it's FM in AH.

Sheesh, where's the proof that every online flight sim has singled out the Corsair for porking?

Just once I'd like to see a thread from you other than a veiled complaint about your favorite plane's FM.

I'm sorry, I try to never criticize or attack someone personally on this BB, but I've had enough of yer crying about the F4U on here already. If you want a Corsair that turns like a Zeke, go build your own damn sim!

[Apache]

Here you go banana.
 http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw/Forum3/HTML/012500.html

------------------
Apache
The Blue Knights

[Sharky]

Hi All,

I think we can afford to give lazs a little slack here.  Lazs loves the, as he puts it, "the manly blue planes"   and while his passion for the Corsair often overrides his manners I think his heart is in the right place.

Lazs,
I'm no expert on flight models but the thing that strikes me as odd, is the fact that the guy responsible for developing the flight model in both WB and AH is HiTech who is a huge fan of the F-4u.

I would think that he would ensure that one of his personnel favorite A/C would be modeled as correctly as it could be.  I've always thought that the Corsair was the worst arena airplane in Warbirds.  Other planes were faster, turned better, climbed better and had better visability.  I'm not sure that the same isn't true in AH.

The problem comes, I think that the Corsair is more "out of it's element" in the free for all atmosphere of the Main Arena than any other plane in the line up.  The Corsair was designed to compete in the Pacific Theater against mostly the zero at medium altitude.

From what I've read of the air war in the PTO, dogfighting was taboo.  The planes of the Japanesse were just to manuverable to beat in a stained dogfight.  As I understand it the idea with the Corsair was hit em hard a keep right on going.

Now in the ETO is was more common for the combat to evolve in to large dogfights with planes manuvering with each other to gain firing position.  The reason for this IMHO was that the aircraft of the ETO were more closely matched in manuverability.

It seems to me that the Main Arenas in both Warbirds and Aces High seems to more emulate the ETO than the PTO.  People tend to stay and fight a turning battle more than would be expected in real life.

The Corsair was not designed to fight this fight.  It was designed to use vastly superiour speed and heavy firepower to win against the zeros.  I have found that in arenas where the Corsair is pitted against it's historical adversairies it does extremely well.

So although the Corsair may or may not hit the numbers as posted in some flight test somewhere (do any of the planes in any of the sims?)  I think the problem is that the Corsair just happened to work out to be the least suited (all around) to the style of fighting found in the "Main Arena"

IMHO
Sharky

[ra]

If I thought there was something wrong with the turn rates of AH planes, I'd still be playing WB.

[F4UDOA]

What the #*%*&!!!??

banana your tired of hearing someone complain about the F4U FM being porked? Have you noticed how many threads there are complaining about obscure details of FW-190 paint schemes and MW-50 boost weather it had it or not and Blah, blah, blah. As a matter of fact you have three times as many post in AH as Lazs. There are some here with 1000 to 2000 post. I don't know what the correct topic to wine about today is but i'm pretty sure the message dweeb squad doesn't get to pick it. Maybe you would like another ban F4U-1C thread to post in?

Anyway I'm not going to post anymore data on the message boards. I keep getting told that only the physics model is accurate and war time testing has become invalid. But I will say that a certain uneducated test pilot from West Virginia had to tell a bunch of engineers that there physics model was broken and if they wanted to stop killing test pilots all over Muroc AFB(now Edwards AFB)that they better use a flying tail on the X-1. So much for their FM.

OH, if anybody is interested I have a Grumman document from WW2 giving preflight data on how they thought the F6F-3 would perform based on their physics model. If they were right they would have never had to build F8F.

Flame away flamers
F4UDOA

[Hooligan]

Kieren wrote:

“How do we know that the Il-2 programmer is an expert on flight data? Not saying he isn't, but he is a relative unknown to me.
What does actual, published flight data on each of the referenced aircraft specify for respective turnrates?”

I don’t “know” that he is an expert, however the source for the data is listed:  “NII-VVS”  So that should qualify for “actual published flight data”.

Funked:
The original thread makes it clear that these numbers are for sustained turn rates, and yes the radius information is not necessarily tied to the times.

If you look at Iddon’s flight test department:  http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/6302/Perform/flight_test_department.htm,  the time it takes WB versions of these planes to make it around 360 degrees is much closer to the NII-VVS numbers (about 22s for the 109F4 and 109G6 for example).

The same guy made the FMs for both WB and AH but it seems to take everything just about 50% longer to do a 360 in AH.  Like I said, something seems a bit odd.  I’d love to hear what Wells makes of this.

Fury:
Other factors no doubt have their effects but if aircraft agility is reduced, micro-warps are reduced, that’s all there is to it.  I see micro-warps in AH.  They’re just not as bad as they are in WB.  Any general increase in aircraft agility will increase micro-warps, although not necessarily to WB levels.

Hooligan

[Wanker]

Precisely, Sharky. And why Lazs doesn't understand this is beyond me.

What disturbs me is that he probably does understand this, and yet he continues to fan the flames over and over again.

Look, the difference between Lazs, and say, Hooligan(and wells & funked) is the delivery. Those guys all use numbers and information as a basis for their discussion. Lazs just starts whining without providing any sort of specific data.

[This message has been edited by banana (edited 06-01-2000).]

[lazs]

Sharky....respectfully, I think you are wrong about the Corsair being "out of it's element" in these flight sims.   i see what you mean but according to every bit of test data that does comparisson testing... the Hog should be a better arena plane acceleration and turn wise than either the 190A, A5 or the P51B and have better speed than the 190 at all alts and better speed than a 51 at a lot of arena alts.   It should be an excellent arena plane with superior turn to most of the others, mid range acceleration ,excellent speed below 20K and  lacking only a little in the climb dept.

But.......this was not about the corsair turn rate or even about comparing rates between AH planes.... that is a whole other subject.... I admit  tho I had hoped that when all the turn rates were fixed the error in the corsair would be found to be greater comparitively.

Just seems to me that WB turn rates are 25-50% better than AH ones and that Wb rates seem to match "real" ac performance pretty closely.   One of the sims is off by a substantial amount.  

Funked.... didn't you tell me way back when that the WB turn was on the numbers?  I don't believe they have changed.
lazs

[Vermillion]

Actually guys from what I have seen, Lazs has a point, and he's not said a thing about the F4U.

Wells is actually the one that brought the issue up on the board in another thread about a week ago. And Wells is not the "whine" type. He's pretty much "by the numbers" kinda guy.

The data they posted about turn times is about what I have seen in other information.

I don't know what the cause is, but we need to find out if our testing is flawed or something in the game is flawed.

Another source of data we can use to look at and compare is from the old AWII boxed set. Note this data is not the model output from AW, but the data they used to create the model.  Now I'm not saying this data is gospel, but just posting it for comparison to the other data earlier in the thread.  Also there is not indication in the data of the flap settings used.

Max Sustained Turning
At Sea Level (degree's/sec rounded to nearest degree) or (360 turn time rounded to nearest second)

P-51D 20 deg/sec or 18 secs
Spit IX  28 deg/sec or 13 secs
Bf109F4  24 deg/sec or 15 secs
Bf109G2  23 deg/sec or 16 secs
Bf109K4  21.5 deg/sec or 17 secs
Fw190A8 19 deg/sec or 19 secs
Fw190A4 21 deg/sec or 17 secs
La5fn 22 deg/sec or 16 secs
F4U-1 20 deg/sec or 18 secs
P-38J 27 deg/sec or 14 secs
N1K2-J 24 deg/sec or 15 secs
A6M5  28 deg/sec or 13 secs

Remember I rounded both numbers up to the nearest whole number.

So lets not jump on Lazs so quickly guys, he may have a point.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"

[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 06-01-2000).]

[LLv34 Nattulv]

Funked:
NII VVS tests was full ammo, 50% fuel.


------------------
Nattulv
Lentolaivue 34

[F4UDOA]

Sharky,

Do you really believe what you just said? The F4U was designed in 1939. It was not designed to combat the Zero. On the contrary the test pilots at vought examined a captured Bf-109 in 1940 before anyone in America new anything about a Zero. It was designed as a carrier fighter which means it has to have a lower wing loading IE. stalling speed and better low speed handling than it's land based counter parts and it did. No aircraft in WW2 could turn with the Zero and live, even the Spitfire V could not turn with a Zero or an Oscar. In the skys over Europe the Luftberry circle was used as a defensive tactic. In the Pacific it would have meant mass suicide to maneuver against a Zero that way. Had the Corsair seen action in Europe it would have been known as a turn and burn A/C instead of boom and zoom. It was tested repeatedly against the P-51B and D, P-47 and FW-190A-5 and could out maneuver them all. You have to read a little bit more than the first paragraph of the cereal box when reading about an F4U. Butch O'Hare was a Hellcat pilot but if you read his memoirs he states that the F4U-1 could outclimb his Hellcats easily and everyone knew it. Donald Engen wrote "Wings and Warriors". He was a F4U pilot, world speed record holder in a F8U Crusader and former Captain of the Aircraft carrier USS America, he then went on to become the directer of the National Air and Space Museum at the Smithsonian. He writes how his Squadrons FG-1D Corsairs (F4U-1D) were able to defeat a rival squads F8F-1 Bearcats in 1948 with the use of their maneuvering flaps. So please don't tell me that a Corsair cannot turn fight with the best. Above 25K I will concede USAF A/C are more suited for operations until the F4U-4 model. But not below 25K.

I reccomend you read "Report of Joint Fighter Conferance" to find out more accurate information about stalling and maneuevering.  http://www.schifferbooks.com/military/aviationwwii/0764304046.html

Thanks F4UDOA

[Nashwan]

I have never flown any plane in real life. I have very little stick time in AH, none in WB, AW etc.
The only thing I know is that improving the turn rates would make things easier for newcomers, as well as for experts.
I think a few tweaks in this direction, and more G tolerance etc and there wouldn't be a need for easy mode.
Please no flames, I  am not asking for better turning capability, I love AH as it is.