UBBERSPITFIRE and UBBERMUSTANG

[Thunder]

I am begining to form a new way of looking at "overmodeled" or "undermodeled" plane commentaries! Maybe the planes are fine just as they are! Maybe the opinions of them are "overmodeled" or "undermodeled"! Maybe we have too many "UberCritics"!   It never will be right for everyone, everyone has there own likes and dislikes, opinions and bias's. It is a game and for me, learning what to do with what we have makes more sense then WHINING about this or that!   HiTech's wav file sums it up nicely!  We want this!.. and that!.. we demand a share in that!.. and most of that!.. some of this!.. and F***in all of that!.. less of that!.. and more of this!.. and F***in plenty of this! And another thing!... I want it now!.. I want it yesterday!.. I want f***in more tomorrow!.. And the demands will be changed then!.. so f***in stay awake!
A thought.... We have Killshooter for guys that shoot freindlies. We need a killshoter for some on these "overmoded","undermodeled", "UBERthis-or-that" over opinionated, pompis
try to feel big by driblin all over these pages flyer types!   hehe Makes me wanna puke!   I think I'll take names and go hunt um... I knew something good would come of this!!!............................. ...
I say this in jest though there may be a thread of truth in it! hehe

Thunder Out!

[shower]

i don't know how accurate the pony really is since i've never flown one.  but i do know this:  i am a mediocre pilot (i admit it) and i make plenty of mistakes.  with every other plane you pay for those mistakes most of the time, but with the stang you can use its speed to get away with mistakes almost every time.  i like to use other planes because i want to pay for my mistakes, and hopefully become a better pilot because of it.  since i as a mediocre pilot can jump into a stang and survive for many times longer than any other plane, it leads me to believe the plane has an advantage over other planes.  maybe it had that advantage in real life.  which brings up my point: ultimate realism and game balance are mutually exclusive goals.  the US won the air battle in both theatres despite having less-experienced pilots.  the primary reason we did well then is one of the same reasons we do well today:  we can afford to produce superior equipment.  since this is ultimately a game (ok, ok! i'll say 'simulation') it has to balanced, or else it's not worth playing, so i say you gotta 'fix' the mustang even if it doesn't really need fixing.

-shower

[Vermillion]

Shower
 

... so i say you gotta 'fix' the mustang even if it doesn't really need fixing.

I hope this NEVER   comes to happen.

Once you start "playbalancing" aircraft, where do you stop and with which country or type of aircraft?

This was reportedly done in another simulation, and the repercussions and personal attacks are still flying over the issue.

I don't want to see that happen here.

And can you honestly call this a "simulation" if the flightmodels have been intentionally crippled to "playbalance" the arena? If it flys differently than the real thing did, the name is just a name.

You might as well call a playbalanced P-51, an Intercomm Tie Fighter. Because neither one is an accurate description of what you are flying.

I say if an aircraft had a historical advantage then so be it, as long as its historical disadvantages are just as accurate.  

Match the FM's to the best numbers available, and then let things fall where they may.


------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires "

[TT]

 That other sim has a correctly modeled(I assume)jet in it. But they only let it play about once a month.

 The better pilots will be able to make out in any plane. But aside from them, we are on the verge of becomming a one plane sim.

 

[Pongo]

Shower.
Have to disagree.
I would rather fight at a disadvantage every time then "Balance" anything.
People have questions about the modeling of the planes in the game. After however many years in the multiplayer Aircombat sim business I bet the crew at HTC are so used to people "discussing" FMs and lethality and everything else that they dont even hear it.
I hope for myself that they find a way to release their flight models in a way that is understandable to us so that we can really debate and compare their "Interpretation" of our favorite aircraft. Some justification for each aircraft would be nice too. I would rate this in importance somewhere between boxart and incorporating the Boomarang into the game.

[Hristo]

No, Shower, nobody is asking for tuning down an aircraft for playability reasons.

I just repeat that I can't believe Pony was that good in just about every aspect except roll rate.

And all we ask is that HTC crew takes another look at the model. Surely they know better, but they can make mistakes (remember our 109G-10). And if it really was that uber, than we need LW uber planes to fight it.

As for detuning a plane for play balance. Hmm, somehow it reminds me of an old WB Dora tale.

[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 12-06-1999).]

[CombatWombat]

Just for the heck of it I did some offline climb tests.  I tried the 51 and F4U.  
Method used:  Both planes were loaded with 25% fuel (both have about the same milage on this amount, maybe little more for stang)  Trimmed for level flight at about 50 ft.  Cut to idle and let her slow to 200mph (IAS) then punched it full wep and pulled till climb was 4k then hit auto angle.  Recorded time every 1k ft.  
I'm not gonna post every 1000 feet here, and my graph is on paper, but heres the over all gist....
1k - 5k both were about equal.  I'm presumming this was still sort of a zoom climb from that 200mph starting speed.  Both the 51 and F4U were good zoom climbers.  No complaints here.

5K-15k, the P51 has a 1-2k advantage at any given time.

15-25k that gap widens to around 2-3k.

Overall times 0-25k were....
P51:  7:14
F4U:  8:17

Also, upon reaching 25k the P51 was traveling about 20mph faster than the F4U.  Presumably you could yank up a bit at the last 2k and cut a large margin off that time, while the F4U would just stall.

I could have made errors, infact I'm sure I did somewhere in there.  I may re-do the test and film it this time...or I might not.  I'm not saying anything either way, you be the judge of the data.  Try it yourself if you want.

[shower]

pongo and hristo,

i agree with you idealogically, of course.  but TT is right when he says we are on the verge of becoming a one plane sim.  realistically, i wonder how many people will tire of shelling out $360 a year for a flight sim the effectively offers only one plane.  i know this game is supposed to appeal to the flight sim purist, but purists alone won't make Hitech Creation's bankroll.  this game has to appeal to the 'dweebs' also, and the way you do that is with variety.

-shower

[Vermillion]

Shower sorry for that attitude back there  

But you must realize that saying a historic FM should be playbalanced, in a Sim like this, is like walking into your local church's chapel and performing a druidic fertility rite   HERESY !!!!

There are other ways to get people to fly "different" aircraft. 3 quick ways I can think off.

1.) Scoring Modifier: Your score awarded for kills is inversely proportional to the amount that killing aircraft is flown. So if you go out and fly a Hurricane II, that is only flown 1 time compared to 100 Spitfire IX sorties, you get a x100 multiplier to any score awarded (probably not that large but you get the picture).

2.) Fuel Multiplier: This is currently in use. Alot of people, myself included, complain about the number of Spitfires in the arena. Well, I think that the fuel modifier is actually keeping that ratio lower than if it wasn't applied. Of course this doesn't effect the problem is the current "uber" is a plane like the Mustang.

3.) Strat Targets:  Make each country have 1-3 aircraft factories. Factory #1 produces the most popular aircraft (and popularity should be dynamic, based upon sortie ratio). Factory #2 produces the second most popular aircraft, etc.  So now the enemy can deprive you of your "favorite" ride by bombing the hell out of the factory that produces them.  Just like with fuel, ammo, bombs, and troops.

These are just a few of the more common ideas that can be implemented.

But please please please don't ask for "playbalancing" of the Flight Models  

------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires "

[leonid]

Lephturn: totally agree on HO'ing.  Only time I find myself in an HO these days is if I'm lo and slo.  Otherwise, I do exactly as you do.  In fact, I suspect there are many players who if not HO'ing are at least looking for a gun pass on the initial merge.  This places them in a similar position as well.  Establish position, then find the gun solution.  Only way to come home alive consistently.

CombatWombat: Your time of 7min. 14 sec. for 0-25k feet in a P-51 is a mere 4 seconds off a time I have from a reference source.

------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA

[-towd_]

the 51 1500hp? acceleration is complete bull it can out accelerate a spit 1900hp? in most situations,and what is up with the flaps i have seen them out turn a spit slow. you guys fixed this prob with the spit by slowin down the speed that flaps drop(wonder why the 51 are still fast and will deploy at 600 kn)

i really believe the super 51 is ruinin this sim (much as the super spit did air warrior)

just give it some weakness, THE HISTORIC ONES WILL DO (the laminar wings suck for low speed turns PLEASE MODEL THIS).i would love to see just one guy lose control in a 50 g 150kn turn. most of the half decent 51 pilots are not at all afraid to engage a spit slow and that is just plain bull.


well im playin alot less, yall may not miss me but just the same i was gonna join this sim when it went public, as it stands im lookin forward to ww2 online, im tired of losin fights to low skill pilots in a plane with no weaknesses at all

[Minotaur]

Towd;

Sorry to hear that.    I am not sure that I understand your reasons, but good luck to you.

For myself I know that I have gotten alot better.  I actually get a kill once in awhile these days.

It is just my opinion, but I suspect that the pilot quality in general is going up.  I just CAN'T be the only one to have improved.

"Bragging Rights" (or wrongs   ) I got my first 4 kill sortie yesterday.  It was very thoughtful of those C-47's to line up so nicely.  I am happy just now.

Tally Ho!  

Mino

[Hristo]

Towd, please, P 51D has one historic weakness. It rolls way slower than 190, especially at slow speed.

Hmm, but that's the only weakness I'd give to the AH P 51D.

[-towd_]

well after my post i went on and climed into a 51 for the evening. and the carnage began, must have made atrox mad killed him 4 seperate times, now he beats me most nites and i consider him to be beter than myself ( at tactical flyin) but hell in a 51 you dont need tactics you are basicaly untouchable if you keep you head on strait and dont get jumped. please please please make one of the "varients" the 190d9 or somthin that is in the 51s league cause 51s are jusplane unreal as far a proformance ( kill tha 650 kn flaps/speedbreaks) .

also an interesting side note got board whith the carnage my 51 was causin  so i jumped into a shinden and had a 6 kill run all 6 kills in less that 5 min (no buffs or 47s either) and unlike wardog they werent vuches either.

in sumation please guys the 51 is in need of some taming (i was turn fightin spits for gods sake)

yall be good

[Baal]

 

the 51 1500hp? acceleration is complete bull it can out accelerate a spit 1900hp? in most situations,and what is up with the flaps i have seen them out turn a spit slow. you guys fixed this prob with the spit by slowin down the speed that flaps drop(wonder why the 51 are still fast and will deploy at 600 kn)

The vast majority of IXs had a Merlin 66 at 1580HP. Not 1900.

And flaps on a spit are designed for landing only. If you're dropping them in a fight you deserve to get your bellybutton shot off.

B

[This message has been edited by Baal (edited 12-08-1999).]