Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Kweassa on December 03, 2003, 06:10:29 AM
-
I think the combination of the torque modelling and tail wheel modelling, fubared some planes.
I've tried this: I found a way to kill the undercarriage but keep the engine alive. Do a slow speed, smooth rocking until the undercarriages fail and you will get a Spit9 with no gears, lying flat on the ground.
Now, in that state, apply full throttle and see what happens: the Spit9 starts to spin left like a helicopter. At full WEP, no amount of rudder will stop the spinning. The torque, is simply much larger than the rudder can handle.
What seems to happen when you try a take off in the P-51D or the Spit9, is the rudder input sort of messes with the plane's torque flow.
This torque, which pushes the plane into a tendency to yaw and roll left when stick left to idle(which also, in a plane with props rotating clock-wise, causes the plane to lift its right wings and wheels first, with the left wing and wheels lifting up later), with player input of the rudders, works against the torque flow and causes a massive spiking of the roll axis(since rudders themselves, also cause certain amount of movement of the plane in the roll axis).
This leads to a classic case of super-sensitive over-correction. The oscillation just increases massively, and the tail wheel modelling makes it worse. Because the plane is stable only when both the main gears are touching the ground, input of the rudders in Beta5 will cause one gear to momentarily leave the ground, causing the plane to swerve one way.
When rudder is released, reduced in input, or left to idle, over-correction kicks in and the plane rolls(rocks) to the other side, which causes the other wheel to leave ground, and the plane swerving in the opposite direction. This is because there's something fishy about how torque effects are modelled with the planes, no doubt about it.
If somehow players manage to gain enough speed before the main gear fails, and the tail wheel leaves the ground, only then the plane becomes stable. The methods suggested above, such as slow application of throttle or application of flaps, in essence, all rely on chance that the plane will be nursed to gain enough speed to let the tail wheel leave the ground, before the combination of weird torque, over-correction in the roll axis, and wild tail gears throw the plane over.
To make it short, the player has to hope that when taking off in the Spit9, he gets the correct combination of the micro-management of roll axis(to keep the main gears pressed to the ground until the tail wheel lifts) and yaw axis(so the plane stays at the runway).
If any of the two factors goes wrong, the plane fails to leave the ground. The problem is that correction of one axis, messes up with the other seriously. Due to the strange torque behavior, rudder input during take off, will cause the roll axis to become fubar, making one main gear come off the ground, and the other main gear+tail wheel causes the plane to swerve. Aileron input, coupled with the torque modelling, will cause over-correction and also make the plane swerve.
That means, none, of the above suggested methods will be consistent in giving satisfactory results for take off, with only the people with tremendous micro-management skills succeeding in take-offs with the same method over and over again. I've succeeded in taking the Spit9 off the ground with various methods, but never the same way twice - when one way works, if you try it again, it may fail.
Now, consider this: the torque, is obviously much larger in the Bf109G-10 than the Spit9. After take off, it takes nearly 3~4 seconds to roll right 90 degrees at 250mph, with a full 360 rightside roll coming near 10 seconds with just aileron input. If you drag the G-10 to vertical, when the speed falls under 200 mph right aileron input almost doesn't work at all. The plane refuses to roll right at all, even with full stick deflection.
Then, why is it easier to take off in the G-10 than the Spit9?
That's because the torque is so ghastly stronger than on the Spit9, that there isn't any oscillation or over-correction issues at all - the plane just mashes itself to the left, so there's no over-correction at all, no matter how you input the rudder or the stick.
....
That said, I don't think this can be right.
Some of the torque issues and tail-wheel modelling do add more realistic effects. That is true. Overall, more sensitive and difficult take-off/landing procedures are always welcome, and the chance of accidents being considerably high, makes even landings and take-offs an enjoyable experience for the gamer.
However, the torque factor and tail wheel factor, working in such a bizzare combination that a plane noted for ease of control such as the Spit9, almost fails to take off at all, definately means something's not right, or incomplete
....
As a bonus, I've found a way to take off in the Spit9, with 100% success rates.
1) After turning engine on, press alt+X and engage auto speed
2) Apply full throttle
3) When the speed nears 100mph, press X to engage level plane
4) No rocking, no yawing. The plane simply rolls forward straight. At 100 mph, the tail wheel is off the ground - at this point, you can take manual control and just pull on the stick and take off.
Watch carefully how the auto-trimming uses the trim. The rudder trim sways left and right continuously, which means the auto control is applying the precise amount of right rudder, to keep the plane going straight down the runway against the torque, and the two main gears staying solid against the ground at the same time. Unless you are really skilled, or have a very precise rudder system, you can't duplicate how the auto controls the rudder amount. It's literally a teensey amount of continuous rudder input that changes little by little, while the overall right rudder input is held at the same time.
-
Never honestly had any trouble with it. gentle increase in power to get nurse it up to speeds where the rudder works better(50 mph) and then it flies great. On my third take off with it I was pretty much going almost imedialty to 75 % power.
I dont know if it is realistic or not. But its not hard to get the hang of.
-
The new wheel modelling does seem like a bit of overkill, since the smallest rudder input results in a ridiculously massive swerve one direction or the other.
I think this is because individual wheel brakes are tied to rudder input, more than anything.
Anyway, I've found that, oddly, it's easier to take off if you firewall the throttle immediately and apply a very, very, very gentle right-rudder input. The key is keeping consistent input, adjusting it only the tiniest amount if you start to fall out of line.
Going to full power immediately is also important, because it keeps the torque force constant throughout your takeoff. I've tried slowly ramping up power as you would realistically, but that requires that you continually adjust your rudder input to keep yourself straight, and since the adjustment is so small that it's practically below the threshold of human precision, it's better just to get the throttle all the way open.
When you are ready to lift off (shortly after the tailwheel comes off the ground), gently pull the stick back and to the right. Both wheels must leave the ground at nearly the same time or else you'll be doing cartwheels.
This way, I've been able to take off the Spit V, and the torque-crazy G10 consistently and reliably. The Spit is harder, because as Kweassa said, less torque means more a more precise input is required.
Landing is a little tougher. :)
Anyway, while it's still not impossible to take off and land consistently, it's bloody hard. Much harder even than Il-2, which I thought was pretty tough (especially with that skinny little undercarriage on the 109).
So in conclusion I think crazy traction effects should be dialed back somewhat.
-
One thing I think that's needed here is lockable tail wheels on all the aircraft in the current set. That doesn't mean the crazy torque effects don't need to be fixed. Using coordinated aileron and rudder inputs, with gentle application of power and the stick pulled hard back produces at best unpredictable results when taking off in the Spit IX. Adding in the use of the existing wheel brakes would probably help here but I was born with only two hands and I don't have toe brakes on my rudder pedals...
If I can get this take off thing mastered I'll see ya's online :D
-
I find it intersting that it's easiest for me to takeoff in the -51 with FORWARD stick pressure, a sure recipe for disaster in a crosswind takeoff. Don't think it's supposed to work that way.
Then I jump in a Spit IX and the thing is nearly uncontrollable. So I watch the autopilot takeoff. The trim indicators show that "George" is countering nose swing with rapid aileron trim inputs. HUH?
Try the G-10, a torque monstah. It swings but hit WEP and it's no problemo.
Methinks they must not be finished with the FM yet.
-
the ah2 fm in its current state is a step backwards compared to ah1. it cant be the finished thing i hope
-
Thanks Ecliptik your method helped me to devise my own way to takeoff and it works everytime after some practice :aok
Go to full throttle as you mentioned and for the very reasons you mentioned, makes perfect sense.
In my case I found that it's better to use just enough right rudder to start it moving(not too fast) to the right side of the runway and then gradually releasing rudder until it starts to go left then as it starts going left, reapply a small amount of right rudder to keep it straight.
Here's where I do something different: Instead of waiting for the tail to come up I'm using full down elevator from the beginning and around 50mph the tail rises, keep using minor corrections to rudder input to keep it straight along with right aileron if necessary.
Release a bit of the forward elevator so you don't face plant it, wait for airspeed to build to rotation speed and then pull up.
Works everytime and after some practice, I'm now able to keep it straight down the runway or at least partly on the runway :p
Oh one more thing, it may help trying this in offline mode first, using outside view (F3) to see exactly what's happening.
EDIT: forgot to mention this is for the spit9
Also noticed what the combat trim was doing when using autotakeoff. It was using aileron instead of rudder which obviously is wrong.
So I turned off autotakeoff and tried auto level and sure enough it kept ailerons more or less centered and was using rudder to keep it straight.
-
My grandfather laughed when I showed him ah1. Tossing a p47 to full throttle and just putzing down the tarmac.
When he was teaching pilots in ww2, he assures me he never told a student to "mash the throttle, and just steer with the rudder". You need airflow over the flight surfaces to have any reasonable control. You every tried to ride a bike backwards? Tail wheels are not easy to control.
I think you guys just need to get used to it. Most people cant land or take off when they start ah1, this is a major change, and I am sure you will all get used to it.
erg
-
I don't think this is something about 'getting used to' erg.
There is no 'reasonable control' of any kind concerning the increasing oscillation of nose.
-
I can successfully take off. It is not easy, but I have no idea how difficult it would be in real life either. I am beginning to suspect the problem is in the tension of the shock absorbers on the wheel struts. If they were a little stiffer, I bet it would be easier for most to keep control.
-
oh yeah, and runways have to be optional for the spit 9 flyer.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
I can successfully take off. It is not easy, but I have no idea how difficult it would be in real life either. I am beginning to suspect the problem is in the tension of the shock absorbers on the wheel struts. If they were a little stiffer, I bet it would be easier for most to keep control.
Spitfires, even the Mk XIV, were not particularly dificult to take off in. At least that's what the pilots of the things said.
Remember, we're not talking about Superman here. We're talking about 19 year old kids with 3 to 6 months of training max before being put into one of these fighters.
As currently modeled (and I do not think it is final) slowly accelerating in the Spitfire Mk IX does not work. It starts to occilate and you almost certainly loose control.
-
Well I was having alot of issues taking off in all planes with the new tail wheel modeling so I went searching. Fortunately I found a great article from a man who owns Spitfires. In it Jeff Ethell gives details on what it took to take off and land. After reading it and going back to AHII I was off the ground perfectly on the first try.
Here's a tid bit on how he explained the tendancies of taking off in the Spitfire IX with either a Merling or Gryffin power plant. Since the Merlin powerplant is modeled in the game I'll explain the takeoff procedures for it.
Forget the auto take off function as it seems not to work to well. Launch your aircraft and wait for your engine to come up to a stable idle condition. Slowly walk the throttles up to approximately 5 to 10% max power. You'll notice a few things when this is done. First off the left wing will dip and your nose will initially wanna come to your right. First off we need to counter the yawing condition. The nose will come right then start back left on you. Apply light right rudder until the nose comes back inline with the runway. Now that the initial yawing is corrected you need to correct for the deep drop in the left wing.
Depending on what your load out is will depend on how much input is needed to correct for the wing dip and yawing condition. In this instance we are light at 25% fuel and no ordanance.
Now that the yawing is corrected you need to input 3/4's to full right aileron input to lift the left wing back up to roll wings level. While inputting full right aileron input and possibly minute forward input increase your throttles up. Now this takes some feel to get use to how much throttle you can apply and how quickly you can apply it. Within about 5 or 6 takeoffs you should have it down pat. You'll have to play with the rudder input slightly during takeoff roll to keep it straight but don't over exagerate the inputs or you'll be in the dirt. Once the tailwheel has lifted off the ground you can start backing off the rudder and aileron input some.
Now depending on the aircraft and the torque it produces it will affect how much input is needed. When the torque is extreme you will still have to have some aileron input even after the aircraft breaks ground. Put the gear up and happy hunting.
Hope this helps some of the newer pilots in the game and a great thanks to Jeff Ethell for his webpage and information.
-
i prolly can count on my hands and toes how many times i have flown a spitIX in AH... but i got 1 up first try online tonight in AHII.
read on ch1 how to do it.
as soon as spawn turn off red "auto takeoff" and turn on yellow "auto level". roll untill about 80 and tail is up... manually take her off the ground.
if I can do it anyone can.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Here's a tid bit on how he explained the tendancies of taking off in the Spitfire IX with either a Merling or Gryffin power plant. Since the Merlin powerplant is modeled in the game I'll explain the takeoff procedures for it.
Forget the auto take off function as it seems not to work to well. Launch your aircraft and wait for your engine to come up to a stable idle condition. Slowly walk the throttles up to approximately 5 to 10% max power. You'll notice a few things when this is done. First off the left wing will dip and your nose will initially wanna come to your right. First off we need to counter the yawing condition. The nose will come right then start back left on you. Apply light right rudder until the nose comes back inline with the runway. Now that the initial yawing is corrected you need to correct for the deep drop in the left wing.
Depending on what your load out is will depend on how much input is needed to correct for the wing dip and yawing condition. In this instance we are light at 25% fuel and no ordanance.
Now that the yawing is corrected you need to input 3/4's to full right aileron input to lift the left wing back up to roll wings level. While inputting full right aileron input and possibly minute forward input increase your throttles up. Now this takes some feel to get use to how much throttle you can apply and how quickly you can apply it. Within about 5 or 6 takeoffs you should have it down pat. You'll have to play with the rudder input slightly during takeoff roll to keep it straight but don't over exagerate the inputs or you'll be in the dirt. Once the tailwheel has lifted off the ground you can start backing off the rudder and aileron input some.
Now depending on the aircraft and the torque it produces it will affect how much input is needed. When the torque is extreme you will still have to have some aileron input even after the aircraft breaks ground. Put the gear up and happy hunting.
Actually, this is great advice and it will work provided you have absolutely clean input from your rudder controller (pedal or twist stick). Any spikes in the signal - even very tiny ones that you use control damping to eliminate will throw everything off. The modeling on the SpitIX is great - probably bang on - but I think it needs just a bit of detuning for playability. IIRC the Spitfires did have free-castoring tailwheels, but the US aircraft just about all came with lockable tail wheels.
At the time the MkIX flew the RAF fields were also more properly aerodromes - grass strips. A tail dragger's behaviour is much more benine on grass than it is on a paved runway. I've got about 600hrs in a Citabria and even an airplane as easy to drive as that one shows a marked difference control requirements when taking off from a paved runway than from a grass strip. Just thank the gods that we don't have gusty cross-winds to contend with :D
-
hmmmmm... too me it's perfectly normal not to
a) slamm throttle forward
b) don't go to full power until you have some airspeed
what you're experiencing is the effect of being below minimum control speed .. usually only used in twin engine airplanes it's also a factor in Very HIGH POWER single engine aircraft, where you have too much torque to counter with a rudder not effective enough at low speeds.
I have flown an AN-2 well not quite a racer but still 1000horse power taildragger.. slam throttle and you'll be headed some other place than the end of the runway because you don't have enough rudder authority to keep the nose pointed the right way ... now consider this is a SLOW speed a/c now how about a 1500+ HP a/c with a tail abou 1/3 the size of the AN2...
-
I refuse to use advice like 'press x' to control a plane for take off. period.
How lame is that? No offense but this is a flight sim. I thought autotakeoff was for newbies and people who cant afford joysticks.
-
Me think that Supafly used the wrong kind of shock absorbers for the spit :p
I remember his trouble counting prop blades :
(http://www.jtsystems.demon.co.uk/duma/images/cartoons/looserivets/190101.jpg)
I know you'll hate me supafly but I'm french ya know ;)
-
erg, I fully agree the solution is lame.
Problem is, I can bet my left nut the current way of things will not stay as it is - not because people whine and fuss about it, but because there's something lame with it.
Lame approach to a lame problem - simple as it is. Besides, not everybody sees this game as their flight simulation representation. People are here to enjoy it - which, they will not be able to do so, when they can't take off at all.
-
I do agree that either the spit is messed (I am sure it is the shock absorbers) or the other planes are too easy.
I have a feeling it is going to be some where in between. For all of the other planes I can mash the throttle at a dead stop and take off no problem. That is not right, so I suspect they are using the spit 9 to test out more advanced models of the undercarraige and torque effects.
Really the 109g10 should be the beast to take off with.
-
Erg, how many hours do you have in taildraggers?
There's some times that you have to do the old "rudder pedal ballet" but that's USUALLY when you've already screwed up. Like raising the tail in a crosswind before the rudder is fully effective.
There are a few aircraft that are real twitchy too.. but I've never seen any as twitchy as this Spit IX in the beta. Doesn't jibe with historical reports, either.
Then you go to the G10, a 109; those HAVE a reputation for being twitchy.. but this one is easy as pie.
So, I believe it's the modeling. And I DO have time in taildraggers.
-
2000 hp tail draggers?
No time in real planes here. From what I understand from my father and grandfather, and other peoples posts, the bigger the engine on these small planes the worse it gets. Narrow undercarriage and small rudders dont help a whole lot either.
I think we all agree something is tweaky in the spit, but I do not agree that the other planes or ah1 is the right way to go. I think they should stiffen some parts of the plane and see what happens.
Last thing I want is dorky takeoff behavior like the current setup. I like the real challenge. Thats why i joined a carrier squad. Nothing like worrying about landing after a long mission with a kill or two. Carrier ops will get interesting again if the spits close to the way they are going to keep it.
-
I've gotten to where I can take off just about every time in the spit by doing this (flaps help):
jam the throttle to 100%
give it nearly full right aileron
give it about 70% right rudder
as you start to go faster, back off on the aileron but make sure that you keep your rudder stable. finally, push forward on the nose until you're rolling level then pull up when you're fast enough.
I think the secret is using that right aileron. When I use it, I hardly get any oscillations at all and taking off is almost as easy as in ah1.
I can't help you guys with landing though, since I haven't managed that yet. :) The best I've done is flipping the spit over its nose onto its back. I couldn't believe it when it happened and I was still there in my cockpit upside down. Don't ever remember that happening in ah1....
-
Well seeing as the auto takeoff even crashes the spit, I would bet its a bug. The alt -x trick works - just make sure you can clear the trees after taking off perpindicular to the runway :)
-
Thanks detch01 your method was 100% succesful, the key is knowing what the plane is going to do and applying rudder ahead of time, landing is a bit harder but I found the trick is to touchdown at about 120mph and apply brakes befor your tail drops. IMO the only thing that needs fixing on tha spit 9 is to disaable autopilot while the wheels are down.
-
Originally posted by zmeg
Thanks detch01 your method was 100% succesful, the key is knowing what the plane is going to do and applying rudder ahead of time, landing is a bit harder but I found the trick is to touchdown at about 120mph and apply brakes befor your tail drops. IMO the only thing that needs fixing on tha spit 9 is to disaable autopilot while the wheels are down.
LOL You're welcome but the technique was laid out by Cobra412 all I did was quote it :).
Cheers,
-
It was just a bug. Whats acctuly was going on with the spits is a portion of the wing was draging the ground when it rolled.
HiTech
-
HEHE! That is so funny. I take it was the left side of the plane.
-
My father flew and instructed in WW2 also.
Ponder this thought: would the AAF or any Air Force approve an aircraft that was basically uncontrollable on takeoff roll? Knowing that their "target population" for potential pilots was a group of people who, in 1940, had little if any familiarity with hi-tech motorized machinery?
Would they design and accept aircraft that "did not have enough rudder"?
Obviously, no. They did design and accept some aircraft that required specific procedures to operate safely and correctly. For example, MANY of the fighters required that you did not jam in full power until you had enough airspeed to make the rudder effective. This, however, was a simple learned behavior, not some cosmic application of inhuman leet pilot skill.
I haven't flown the WW2 fighters, but I've got time in T-6 types and twitchy little S2B Pitts aircraft. Enough to know that if I follow procedure, things work they way they were designed. If I don't, I get to do the rudder pedal ballet. 2000 HP doesn't matter; technique does. You can get in trouble in a 200HP PT-19 if you don't follow correct procedure.
And THAT boils down to this basically: Get enough airspeed to make the rudder effective BEFORE you lift the tail and BEFORE you go to max power in the high-horsepower aircraft. Usually, something around 50 mph will do it, too, sometimes a bit more.
Lastly, consider this. If it was a difficult as you think, takeoff training losses would have been unacceptable. It was a skill to be mastered, yes. And hundreds of thousands (millions?) of farm boys with no previous flying experience were in combat with roughly 200-250 total hours of flying time (in the US... other countries gave far less training.)
So, Erg, I'll put you in the totally misinformed "Damn the realism! Give me difficulty instead!" group.
BTW, thanks HT. I figured it had to be something like that in the programming.
-
I am not as far to the damned realism as you may hope. I just dont agree with the ease of take off we see in the ah2 planes yet. All of these planes, besides the spit9 9(before the fix) are jam the throttle and fly with no problems.
Is this what you see as real? Apparently not from your comments,
so, toad, I think i have to place you amongst the totally misinformed "you agree with me and dont realize it yet" group.
-
No, they probably should NOT be modeled as "jam the throttle, keep your feet on the floor and go fly" IF... and this is a big IF... you're looking for "realism"... whatever that is on a PC in your spare room.
You have to step back and look at the inclusion of auto-takeoff in AH1. If HT wanted "ultimate realism" that feature would not exist.
This GAME is just that.. it's a GAME with some realism added. I think he's tried to emphasize realism where it counts and deemphasized it where it doesn't really matter.
If his non-pilot clientele needs to take 60 online hours to learn basic aircraft maneuvering like take-off, landing, stalls and basic aerobatics and VFR navigation (pretty much what the first 60 hours in US PT aircraft offered during the war), then he may have difficulty attracting a sufficient number of clients to keep the shop open.
So, correctly, IMO, some things that are not key factors of the actual fighting (yes, like takeoff) have been simplified so the new members can get right to the action. At a later date, they can elect to not use auto-takeoff if they seek the ultimate high , the "realistic" takeoff of a 109G10 on their 19" monitor with plastic flight controls and four speaker surround sound.
I think his focus is on the fighting, primarily, and that's a good thing IMO.
I've probably got somewhere around 20K actual flying hours... I use autotakeoff all the time. Why? Because I can easily do it manually; it's no big challenge AND I can use that initially (normally) useless time to go get a beer or let the dogs out/in. But then, I'm sure this game could teach me lots and lots about realistic takeoffs. I'll guess I'll just miss out on that.
YMMV.
-
I see your point Toad but don't agree with it entirely.
I agree that creating difficulty is not the same thing as adding realism. I also concur that HTC needs subscribers to stick around, but I disagree that AH is "just a game" so keep it as one, and keep it simple at that.
But why bother having flaps or dive breaks? Trim? Redout/blackouts? Stalls, compression and spins? Why have landing gear? Why not just give players air starts because landing and taking off just delays getting back into the fray and interrupts the fun. If it's all about having "fun" and damn the "realimZ" then why have so many sought after more complexity and realism, left one venue for another seeking it and why aren't we all still playing 1993's Air Warrior?
IMO, a players aircombat "ability" will plateau at some point. Some sooner, some later. And when that occurs IMO players have nothing left to do but "play" the "game." For many the learning curve flat-lines, the countdown to boredom begins and burnout soon sets in.
With AH I liked how HTC managed to allow users to select automation for some features. Presumably this was at a "cost" and was players did not get top performance for whatever feature they chose to automate; be it fuel/trim/prop pitch etc.
I for one wish HTC would add more realism features that players could choose to automate should they not want to not tackle them. Engine and aircraft managment features.
While players, such as I, could choose to extend the learning curve, evolve more as "virtual" pilots of "virtual" WWII aircombat machines and perhaps (maybe the most important point) remain paying customers.
Westy
-
I agree with what you say, and I also agree that this is a air combat game more than a flight sim, but...
I also like the immersion, and of course not everyone does, or even believes its immersive. Forcing others to follow some of that realism is half the fun. I think HTs comprimises have been great. Autotakeoff combat trim, autoclimb, autolevel (essentials for sanity and beer drinking), but nothing like 'no canopy view' and the like.
Of course i doubt autotake off is going to be in the TOD.
maybe they could add autoland and the furballers would be set. FOr those that come back that is.
-
Westy, I'll reiterate this line:
I think he's tried to emphasize realism where it counts and deemphasized it where it doesn't really matter.
Some of the things you mention matter in air combat, like flaps and dive breaks. Use of these can be critical in an engagement and a superior knowledge of how and when to use them (as well as when not to use them) can be critical to winning an engagement. It may well separate the "men from the boys" in the game.
OTOH, takeoff doesn't fall into this category, really. Not IMO. Yeah, you have to get airborne to fight but the learning curve on that is not very steep or long. And adding difficulty where it doesn't historically belong simply to make it harder is, well, stupid.
Then there are misconceptions, like autotrim. It's a rare historical account indeed that attributes a pilot's victory to his ability to manipulate the trim wheels while hotly engaged. Yeah, it may have happened but generally the trim wasn't touched much during a hot enagement. Maybe a bit of pitch trim, rudder to a significantly lesser extent and aileron probably not at all. So the whole Combat Trim/Manual Trim measure of a man's AH skillz is sorta funny to me.
Don't get me wrong, there's no harm in "selectable" features as long as they don't confer an advantage where there should be none.
Tracer/No Tracer is a good selectable feature. It allows more suprise but at a cost to those not well versed in shooting to begin with.
It's like autopilot. Fighters didn't have what we have. Now, you may choose to sit there and carefully manage your climbout to 10k or whatever, immeresed in the overwhelming realism of it all. ;) Me, I'll hit a keystroke and go for another beer. :D
Erg, autotakeoff may well be in TOD. What possible difference could it make? With most folks' level of in-game experience, you should be able to easily get off the ground with these FM's.
Heck, in order to promote "realistic" encounters within the proposed time frames, they may have starts at altitude. Will this turn you off TOD? It wouldn't bother me at all; I didn't come here for the climbout, I came for the fight.
-
>>But why bother having flaps or dive breaks? Trim? Redout/blackouts? Stalls, compression and spins? Why have landing gear? Why not just give players air starts because landing and taking off just delays getting back into the fray and interrupts the fun.<<
From a game design point of view, the things you listed are nuances that make the game more fun. It also fun ( and educational) knowing they are based in realism. Not only are you fighting the enemy, you are doing so while fighting gravity. Landings are optional of course :) Seriously, landings add a sense of completion and confirm a successful mission. Even when you can land with your eyes closed, landing a successful mission online is NEVER boring. Its the reward you've worked for. Its the victory lap. With that in mind, I have no problem with the fact that landings may be a little more difficult in AHII.
Takeoffs are a minor boring part of the game. You can't feel the g's or the rush, so its akin to booting a computer - as Toad said, a good time to grab a beer.
The time it takes to get to a fight , however, is very important so air starts would change the dynamics of the game. If I wanted a flight sim to practice touch and goes, I get one dedicated to realism and not game play.
I agree with Toad.
-
Hitech,
I'm curious as to which engine is modeled for the Spitfire IX. Is it the Griffon Spitfire or the Rolls-Royce Merlin based Spitfire.
After reading this article by Jeff Ethell Jeff Ethell's Pireps - Supermarine Spitfire (http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/web/special/ethell/pirep2.html) it sounds as if the modeling is a Griffon Spitfire due to what it takes to properly takeoff. With this it actually seemed as if the modeling was correct. Not sure as far as the sensitivity level though as I have no real flight time to speak of.
After following the exact opposite of the steps for take off he described I was off and flying with ease. I figured this was due to the fact the Merlin engine wasn't being modeled for this particular Spitfire IX. Also since I have no idea who Jeff Ethell is and if his accounts are acurate it'd be nice to know the skinny on this all.
Just seems very odd that when before I couldn't get off the ground to save my life and then I read his description of taking off and apply it that I could with ease.
-
Originally posted by hitech
It was just a bug. Whats actually was going on with the spits is a portion of the wing was draging the ground when it rolled.
HiTech
this is a good reason too why it is not working correctly
-
Okay I found the answer to my question. The Mk IX was never fitted with the Griffon power plant. So I'm assuming Jeff Ethell was not necessarily just describing the Mk IX but all variants of the Spitfire itself.
But that brings up another question since it has to be the Merlin powerplant in the Mk IX then isn't it's torque characteristics reversed? It would seem so with how Mr. Ethell describes taking off in the Merlin based aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Hitech,
I'm curious as to which engine is modeled for the Spitfire IX. Is it the Griffon Spitfire or the Rolls-Royce Merlin based Spitfire.
The Spitfire Mk IX in AH is specifically an early Spitfire F.Mk IX powered by a Rolls-Royce Merlin 61 engine. It has some options that it should not, such as the option to take .50 cals and rockets. The Spitfire Mk IX was the first Spitfire to be equipped with a two stage engine, which is why it does so well at altitude.
The first Griffon powered Spitfire to enter service was the stopgap Spitfire Mk XII of which 112 were built. It was powered by a single stage Rolls-Royce Griffon III and used to run down low level Fw190 nuisance raiders.
The first planned production Griffon Spitfire was the Spitfire Mk XIV that we have in AH. It was powered by a two stage Rolls-Royce Griffon 65.
-
If this is in fact a Spitfire F.Mk IXC then you are correct. If it is a F.Mk IXE then it did have the 2x20mm and 2x.5 machine guns then you are not... Thats why I'm curious about the FM.
Gonna do more research to see if the actual torque model is correct. Only reason I'm saying this is because from one of the sites I've found on taking off it seems the torque is backwards with it being the Merlin engine.
-
I would wait until hitech fixes the planes dragging piece problem before you discuss take off torque direction.....
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
If this is in fact a Spitfire F.Mk IXC then you are correct. If it is a F.Mk IXE then it did have the 2x20mm and 2x.5 machine guns then you are not... Thats why I'm curious about the FM.
Hitech or Pyro (I don't recall which) long ago stated that the Spitfire Mk IX in AH had a Merlin 61 engine. None of the 300 or so Spitfire Mk IX's powered by a Merlin 61 had the option to carry the .50s.
I am not as familiar with the Spitfire F.Mk IXs powered by the Merlin 63, so there may have been some of those with the .50s.
The Spitfire LF.Mk IX, powered by the Merlin 66, and Spitfire HF.Mk IX, powered by the Merlin 70, both had many examplesthat carried the .50s.
From a stand point of production and significance to the war (as well as having what historical pilots mean when they talk about the Spit IX) the Spitfire LF.Mk IX should be added. There were literally 10 times as many Merlin 66 Spitfires as Merlin 61 Spitfires.
-
Okay from what I did, both the Spit and the Pony were easy to get off the ground, but on the other hand the C47 would never get airborn, I kinda drove it all over the airfield, now this is one that needs fixed... We have to be able to get the goons up and troops out...
-
You got a calibration problem or something, the C47 is not at all difficult to take off, neither is the spit 9 once you learn how.
-
Here's just one of the listings about the Supermarine Spitfire F.Mk IXE and the other Spitfire variants. Supermarine Spitfires (http://www.bismarck-class.dk/other_craft_involved/british_aircraft_involved/fighter_aircraft/supermarine_spitfire.html)
Through some research I've found many sites with the same information. Still trying to find photos of this particular version and it's wing design.
-
you can stop searching, first 300 spitfires powered M61 was rebuild mkV ans has only "B" wing armnents
Our spitfire is hybrid ;)
-
Uhm, is this a typo?
Mk IV
7135 hp Rolls-Royce Griffon IIB (experimental prototype version only) later modified to prototypes Mk XII and Mk XX
:eek:
The site also lists the Mk V with a top speed higher than a Mk XIV.
-
I figured it was a hybrid due to the fact there is no mirror and upper antenna modeled on the IX in the game. And probably is a typo..has to be..lol..
I'll have to go to the Supermarine Fire.org site for better info. Still think the torque is opposite of the Merlin engines characteristics from what Jeff Ethell said. Anywho.
-
search in Aircraft&vech... for thread about spitfire LF mk9, we have big discussion with many links about spit there
its here
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27008
-
Didnt I hear stories abound rookies in P51-Ds that fliped over using full power on taKEOFF from the tourqe?
-
That, always made me wonder. I've also heard stories like that, but none of them were second-hand or first-hand sources. Always, somebody quotes that from long distant sources which they also don't know about.
So, is that really true? When someone engages full throttle directly after turning the engine on, will the torque just flip the plane over?
Somehow, considering the weight of the plane, I don't think torque force, even with 2000hp engines, is itself enough to flip a plane standing still with three gears instantly.
From what I imagine, I gather that it is the following results of a full-throttle take-off run that causes the plane to fall under the danger of ground-looping, and that, is what causes the planes to 'flip' - as in the case of the Beta5 Spit9(although, this was due to a bug).
Can anyone comment on this?
-
I've heard of plane flipping-over only when landing .
They flipped-over when the pilot firewalled the throttle aborting the landing.
I don't know of any occurence at take off.
Concidering that when flipped over the plane end on her back, because I've heard of plane getting damaged at take off but none ended "flipped-over"
-
Well, it's like this. There actually was NO AIRWAR in WW2.
You see, they never could get any 19-20 year olds fully trained. No nation had any success at this. Oh, things went well through the Primary Trainers. They lost bunches moving up into Advanced Trainers. But then..... DISASTER.
Every single recruit died while trying to check out in front-line aircraft. It was just too difficult for mortal men to do.
All those films of aircraft in WW2 are faked. The whole idea never got off the ground.
-
huh whats is ww2? ;-) its sowhere near chicago?