Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: OIO on February 06, 2005, 10:05:02 PM
-
I hadn't played AH since a few weeks before AH2 was released.
My impressions of the plane on this new version (comparing L model only unless other model mentioned)
1- The initial turning rate that was present in AH1 is gone. Completely.
I consider this a huge nerf for the plane, as the real 38 was known for this feature.
2- Autoretracting flaps. Still screwing all 38 versions over and then some. HTC has done great things with the game...but c'mon guys, this autoretract fairyness has gone long enough. 3+ years?? :(
3- Cockpit visibility (foward) :
P-38G: The glass is placed too low. See Pic:
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p38cp-2.jpg)
The upper portion of the glass is not below the frame but over the frame not blocking much of the view. In AH2 is blocks almost a third of the foward visibility.
P-38J&L : The foward-up arc frame is too thick..waay too thick...see pic:
(http://www.web-birds.com/9th/474/2.jpg)
Altimeter: The red marker indicating 10k alt is ... well, impossible to see.
Ammo counters, while not present in the real 38, are almost completely obscured by the wheel yoke. Can it not be placed directly under the gunsight... or why not, on the middle of the wheel yoke itself?
(though im all for removing ammo counters from all planes that didnt have them imo :) )
38L: Dive flaps: Still not producing the upward 2g to 3g pull when deployed after entering high speeds. Sample of this found documented in P38 test pilot remarks on magazines issued to ww2 38 pilots.
(http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=get&tp=202470)
-
another view of the 38J cockpit:
(http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/walkaround/chinojl/dsc04820_med.jpg)
and another ..
(http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/walkaround/chinojl/dsc04835_med.jpg)
-
Ok, this is the last time I'm going to explain it.
The way auto retracting flaps works is if the current system wasn't in place, they would break at the speed at which they retract.
You would not gain further usefullness by having the flaps out at that speed. You will only cripple your plane.
-
laser theres many alternatives to retract or break-off. Im just posting it as an observation. it is a *critical* thing for the p-38 and its been going on for too long. It was the very reason why I left AH1 and its the very reason why I will sadly not resubscribe to AH2.
i still say that increasing the autoretract speed by 100mph (I said AUTORETRACT, not that players can deploy flaps 100mph above that what they can now) BUT making the plane shake like a compressed mofo during those 100mph is the best solution. If my plane shakes I cant shoot, but at least I wont lose my flaps or lose the fight because in a tight turn with 3/4ths flaps down in a knife fight my speed indicator hits the freaking retract tickmark for a split second .. the flap pulls up as im pulling hard on the stick and the plane of course spins out of control and the guy that im about to shoot down suddenly finds a spinning 38 that was on his tail as an easy kill. Nothing can piss you off more than that.
-
I've read a lot of books by WW2 pilots, never have I seen mentioned someone exceeding Vfe w/ flaps deployed so much that something happens. What happens IRL if you do this? tail stall? flaps fall off? wing dammage? Pilot labled a dilbert?
-
The fowler flaps do not blow back up from windforce because they slide in rails towards the rear of the wing. Sort of the same thing as a computer desk's keyboard tray slides in and out of the desk.
There are some accounts of 38's returning with structural wing damage and flaps jammed from overspeed, but ive never seen or heard of any that got ripped off.
-
OIO,
If you want to play "Flapfest: The Combat", try Il-2:FB:AEP. You can flap away to your merry contentment, ne'er worrying about flying in a semi-realistic manner.
-
I have yet to understand what this fuzz about the flaps in the 38 is all about.
I do fly it alot but I havent' noticed anything wrong with it. Yes they autoretract and it throws off your aim at times. So what.
Try a 190 if you think the P-38 has bad flaps. :D
-
The dive flaps work on the P-38L just fine. You need to have combat trim turned off and the elevators trimmed to as close as neutral as you can get though.
IMO, the P-38L became a better plane in AH2. I don't see how you can say it was 'nerfed'. It was one of the planes that got a big boost from the flight model revision that was introduced in AH2.
It surprising how some of the most vocal people in this game about adding 'realism' are also the most vocal about not ditching the auto-retracting flaps system. What are they afraid of? What is so scary about replacing a system that did not exist on most planes with a system that will model the damage to the flaps from over-speeding/stress?
ack-ack
-
It surprising how some of the most vocal people in this game about adding 'realism' are also the most vocal about not ditching the auto-retracting flaps system. What are they afraid of? What is so scary about replacing a system that did not exist on most planes with a system that will model the damage to the flaps from over-speeding/stress?
I agree if the flaps were deployed at a given speed. By the use of flap drag you can better maintain this speed. But when the flaps go away, then you lose the drag and lift and the shot so then whats the point of having flaps to begin with. Put a noise in, like when your compressing or something that lets you know about flap over speed. But let us manipulate the flaps not auto.
Straiga
-
Karnak, ive played IL2 and the flapfest you mention exists because players can use flaps whenever they freaking want (pretty much).
that is NOT what i want.
What I want is to have the exact same system we have now... meaning you CANT deploy 1 notch of flaps at 400mph.. you can only deploy the first notch at around 240 mph, 2nd at around 200, etc etc (as it is in the game NOW)
What I want is for the flaps NOT to autoretract at their current retract speed.. but rather currentautoretractspeed+100mph. After that they do autoretract.
And this would apply to all planes not just the 38... since no other plane suffers from flap retraction as horribly as the 38 it would be a fair thing to do for all planes AND it fixes the 38's problem.
Leit: the 38's flaps retract and cause the aircraft to spin out of control. Thats the problem. a 190 uses flaps as a last resort and at really low speeds, the 38 HAS to use flaps under 250mph or anything will turn inside it.
ack-ack: the dive flaps had 2 distinct effects on the aircraft depending on when they were deployed. The imagedump link i posted reads:
"...you start down, and as you accelerate and start closing in (on bandit), you notice your airspeed indicator winding up, and then you decide to extend dive flaps. As the flaps extend, the nose will tend to pull up, and even if you put plenty of foward pressure on the control column it will be darn near impossible to keep him in your sights.
DIVE FLAPS EXTENDED AT HIGH SPEED TEND TO CHANGE YOUR LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION BY PICKING YOUR NOSE UP.
If you had put the flaps down to begin with, there would have been no tendency for directional change and you would have had a steady gun platform all the way."
Sound like what its in AH2? Not really imo. at best the dive flaps in the game give you minimal control of the plane under compression so you can pull nose up... but its pointless to even use them as trimming the nose up pulls the plane out of compressed dive much much faster.
I said it was nerfed in the manouvering dept. Its still as good a B&Z plane as in AH1. The snap-turn is gone. You cant clover-leaf with the 38 (snap-turn, let go of stick and accelerate, snap-turn, ,let go of stick and accelerate)... sciscors suffer lots from nose not being able to be pulled up fast enough.... you know its almost like the 38L in AH2 didnt have the hydraulic flight controls in the elevators.
-
OIO,
When I see you advocating to get flaps for the US aircraft at 350mph I see that as a blunt request for "Flapfest II: Online Combat". Do that and there is no reason to fly anthing other than US aircraft. You already have a P-38 that matches a frickin' Spitfire Mk V's turn capability despite having nearly double the wingloading. But that miracle isn't enough for you, oh no, you need to be able to start to out turn it where it cannot possibly turn.
Good grief.
-
"You already have a P-38 that matches a frickin' Spitfire Mk V's turn capability despite having nearly double the wingloading."
you're on crack.
1st notch of 38 flaps wont be deployable at 350. They will remain extended up until then. Big difference.
The drag from the flaps will make the accelerating or even retaining 350mph to be neigh impossible unless you on a sustained dive. And you WONT accelerate to 350 on a turning fight. And the P-38 is the best accelerating US aircraft.
It wont be flapfest at 350mph.
-
When I see you advocating to get flaps for the US aircraft at 350mph
i havent seen that request in this thread anywhere...:confused:
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/68_1107796037_lockheed-p38[1].jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/68_1107796059_p38_infl[1].jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/68_1107796091_p38-25[1].jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/68_1107796110_p38-33[1].jpg)
-
And the P-38 is the best accelerating US aircraft.
Myth. The P38 is the WORST accellerating US fighter. Just check out the Tactical trials of a P47D, P51D, P38J vs Zeke. The P38 came in dead last against both USAAF fighter types in all performance parameters. It's been done to death in monster threads and backed up with scores of documentation.
At the 1944 Joint fighter Conference it was rated as "not manuverable enough to compete with modern fighter designs". It was rated as "still useful for escort duties against Japanese Aircraft". It also scored well as an attack platform.
Crumpp
-
In AH it's the P38 is the best climbing US fighter save possibly the perked F4U4.. So acell must be pretty good here.
This request for a 100mph increse for autoretract is hillarious.
I actually could never have imagined this is what OIO wanted. He doesnt really have anything against autoretract, he just wants the autoretracvt speed upped some 100mph. There is even no talk of damaging the flaps or even no possibio9ty of damaging them in his plan even if you keep them out at higher speeds..
Blantant, self serving, selfish hillarious BS...
-
Deleted for flame.
-
It surprising how some of the most vocal people in this game about adding 'realism' are also the most vocal about not ditching the auto-retracting flaps system. What are they afraid of? What is so scary about replacing a system that did not exist on most planes with a system that will model the damage to the flaps from over-speeding/stress?
very well put:) just get rid of it. if they break, they break and that is our mistake to make.
-
Originally posted by killnu
very well put:) just get rid of it. if they break, they break and that is our mistake to make.
I'd have no problem with this, so long as when they broke they ceased to have any imput into the FM. When they break, tear them off or retract them.
-
Originally posted by Furball
Deleted for flame.
Ya big meanie HT! :D
-
grun, before you resort to personal attacks try flying the 38 for at least a couple of weeks and engage in turn fights.
I guarantee you that you will see how a flap retracting and spinning your plane out of control JUST because the plane touched a speed which is easily achieved for a split second on a turning fight. 7 out of 10 fights that I lose are all thanks to this fairy feature.
Rip the flaps out? HELL id PREFER to lose my flaps and still be able to dive away than to SPIN and have the other guy shoot me down. But i prefer NOT to lose the flaps (there are pilot reports of them deploying and using the flaps in speeds well above the flight manual's specifications) so the other option is to increase the threshold of the autoretract.
If I say 20mph above current threshold its still too close. 50mph still too close. 80mph is ok, 100mph would be best imo, for some high altitude fights have the 38 gaining speed quite fast in nose below horizon turns.
And i didnt say there wasnt no drawback to it. I do want the plane to shake real bad all the while flaps are deployed in that 100mph threshold. the whole point is to NOT have the plane spin out of control from a feature that does not affect any other plane in the planeset but seriously affects the 38.
-
OIO, not that this dead horse hasnt been beaten enough, but...
As the whole request alternative to auto-retract (and be resonable about it) stands:
Make it optional like auto take-off.
Flap deployment is still locked out over spec speed.
Add a damage probability model. Example:
Percent over...........Speed for..........Damage
deployment............150mph. ............Probability
speed...................deplo yment
1%..............................151.5............... .25%
2%..............................153.................. .5%
3%..............................154.5................ 1%
4%..............................156................... 2%
5%..............................157.5................ 3%
6%..............................159................... 5%
8%..............................162.................. 10%
10%............................165.................. 33%
15%............................172.5............... 75%
Damage type is consistent with flap type. (eg. break off, jamb, forced up and inoperable)
Your suggestion is a little over the top.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
damage probability model
Won't work either. Some people will get flaps damaged 10 times in 11 sorties and others once in 20... What we'll get is neverending whining...
Either there's fixed hard limit (and for all planes), or we leave it as it is.
For those who are complaining about p-38, go take 109 for a tour and turn fight with better turners.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Won't work either. Some people will get flaps damaged 10 times in 11 sorties and others once in 20... What we'll get is neverending whining...
Either there's fixed hard limit (and for all planes), or we leave it as it is.
For those who are complaining about p-38, go take 109 for a tour and turn fight with better turners.
I disagree, look at the example its on a curve. The more you abuse it, the more likely a failure occurs. Besides which, "Some people" would have opted to uncheck auto-flaps, and if they didnt like the results a) it was their choice to begin with b) they're free to recheck auto-flaps.
10 ton rated bridges dont automatically fail at 20,001lbs. 40psi tires dont automatically burst at 40.1psi. S rated tires dont automatically fail at a split second of 113mph. But flaps at a set degree automatically fail or auto-retract at the instant the rated mph is reached?
-
OIO,
Maybe, just maybe, the P-38 driver shouldn't be expecting to turn fight with Spitfires and Zeros.
The fact that the incredibly generous flap model allows it to do so with the possibility that a sloppy P-38 driver, using his aircraft in a way that it should not be used, may pay a stiff penalty does not change any of this.
If the flaps broke at 251mph you'd still spin. It would make no difference at all to how you fight.
-
I have flown the P38 now and in AH 1, and it turns great. I see no problem with it what so ever.
Maybe you and I can test it out in the Dueling arena some time.
As for your request it really is purely selfish and self serving, you want an extra 100mph added to the autoretract with still no possibility of damage to the plane. Considering your realism cries of autoretact being unfair and unrealstic that you now come and say you want an autoretact v2.0 that just gives you what you want with no damage is pretty blatant and actually shows that your request was always pretty self serving and dishonest.
And this is especially true considering that every other plane will fall out of the sky if you turn too hard once your flaps go up.. Less lift = less turny stuff. There are limits to this you know...
-
Originally posted by OIO
I said it was nerfed in the manouvering dept. Its still as good a B&Z plane as in AH1. The snap-turn is gone. You cant clover-leaf with the 38 (snap-turn, let go of stick and accelerate, snap-turn, ,let go of stick and accelerate)... sciscors suffer lots from nose not being able to be pulled up fast enough.... you know its almost like the 38L in AH2 didnt have the hydraulic flight controls in the elevators.
I don't see that at all with the current P-38L. I found it much easier to maneuver in AH2 than I did in AH1. When AH2 came out, it was a lot easier to turn with Spitfires and N1K2s than it was in AH1. But that's just me so YMMV.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
In AH it's the P38 is the best climbing US fighter save possibly the perked F4U4.. So acell must be pretty good here.
This request for a 100mph increse for autoretract is hillarious.
I actually could never have imagined this is what OIO wanted. He doesnt really have anything against autoretract, he just wants the autoretracvt speed upped some 100mph. There is even no talk of damaging the flaps or even no possibio9ty of damaging them in his plan even if you keep them out at higher speeds..
Blantant, self serving, selfish hillarious BS...
Something that the majority of us P-38 pilots do not want. The majority of us want the auto-retract system replaced with a far more realistic modeling of the flaps in regards to damage caused by over-speeding/stress.
ack-ack
-
I don't see why it was such a terrible accelerator.
It is one of the best climbers.
That means some bottom power
its got nothing to do with drag not at low speeds.
when u talk about high speed yes thats where drag counts.
JFC my prettythang
hi crummp i was just expecting u here.
maybe i should start an anti FW lobby just like u guys jumping on every P38 thread to down talk it.
how in gawds name could it only be suitable as escort against the most manouvrable wo2 planes the japanese ones.
Anyway i realy like the way u present urself as a kind of wo2 plane guru
i tell u u aint
no i don't whine about the P38 its ok with me
-
No OIO, you would not gain anything by getting rid of Auto retract.
You gain nothing by getting rid of Auto retract.
That's the simple fact.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No OIO, you would not gain anything by getting rid of Auto retract.
You gain nothing by getting rid of Auto retract.
That's the simple fact.
He doesnt want to get rid of autoretract, he wants the autoretract speeds to be 100mph over the flap deploy speeds. Yes, his request is that outrageus.
-
karnak any 38 turning with a spit or zero is an idiot. Im talking about turnfighting with 109's, 190's, soviet fighters, P-51 and P47. Planes which the 38 should have no problem whatsoever out-turning at speeds below 250-200 mph with flaps out.
See a pattern in those planes? They are the planes the P-38 is at a disadvantage energy fighting so you force them into a turnfight at low speeds. And its in those fights that the damn flaps pull up on their own, spin you out and make you lose..a feature which does NOT affect any other plane in the set as severely as the 38.
Murdr: I think that system could be adopted as well, but with a higher treshold. (and yeah i like yours better, im not a math person :) )
15%=75% probability above deployment level is pretty much what we have now. youd be replacing retract with damage to flaps or jams in every fight.
id say start with 20% above deployment speed be around 15% probability and get progressively worse after that.. say 75% damage probability at 40% above deployment speed(the P-38 had the manouvering flaps locks added in mid-late war models so that the pilots couldnt deploy past those speeds for safety reasons, as some 38s were coming back with wing damage.. but those pilots reported using the flaps at well over 300mph not just mere 30mph above the lock-deployment speed).
And i say 25% because its not a 1 time deal that the 38 will exceed the deployment speed for that 30mph.. heck thats the whole freaking problem with the autoretraction, its a speed mark that the 38 easily reaches and so fast in a below horizon turn ..and as ive said before the plane will slow down barely a second or 2 later to waay under the deployment speed as the turnfight continues above horizon.
I would say in a turnfight i make a good 20 or so 'turns' with a con (yes me being on its 6 and close to getting a shot)..up and down horizon. 20 chances of being hit by a 75% damage chance if i exceed the 30mph (about 15% over deployment speed) is waay too high.
hows :
over deployment speed %: speed OVER the 150 retract point: Prob of damage happening
20% : +30 mph : 15%
25% : +38 mph : 25%
30% : +45 mph : 35%
35% : +52 mph : 55%
40% : +60 mph : 75 %
50% : +75 mph : 100%
note the jump from 35% prob to 55% then to 75%. of damage and then the guaranteed damage point.
when in the turnfight its those 30 mph to 45mph that would remove the 'touch the retract point for the split second' problem while still having the pilot have a decent but low chance of damage each time it happens..and a rather high chance of it happening if the flaps are obviously being abused 35% above retract speed and higher.
-
OIO,
That's funny, because the Spitfire has trouble out turning some of the fighters, earlier 109s, Yaks and La-5/7, you mention, yet you claim that the P-38 should easily out turn those, and not try turning with a Spitfire.
Come on, the P-51 and P-47 both gain from the same overmodeled flaps as the P-38, and like the P-38 they can out turn all of those aircraft. Even the Bf109s which all tested as turning better than the P-51 or P-47.
You need to realize that your fighter does not have to have a counter to whatever you run into. Most of us don't expect that and I don't know why P-38 drivers think differently. There are many fighters that will simply kill the Mossie unless they mess up, and the Ki-84 cannot disengage. I accept these things when I lift off in those fighters. If you need to always have a counter, fly an La-7 or an Fw190D-9.
-
Who told you a P-38 should out turn a 109?
-
with full flaps out at or under 200mph? yes wotan.
ill grant the E and F4 models will out-turn the 38.. i was reffering to the G models.
Karnak:
"Yaks and La-5/7"
I apologize i was typing a bit too fast. The Yak and LA5 should not be in the 'no problem to out-turn' You're right about those 2. I usually win turnfights vs yak and La5 because it ends up on the deck at stall speeds where the yak and La5 are at a disadvantage vs 38.
But the La7? definetely out-turned under 200mph by a 38 with flaps out.
-
It is one of the best climbers.
As was discussed in the other threads, this can be an indication of accelleration but is not a definative charactersitic.
Let's see how far ahead the P38J was against the Zeke in comparision with other USAAF fighters:
P38:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037906_p38accelleration1.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037958_p38accelleration2.jpg)
The P47, which after 1 min was almost twice the distance away from the Zeke:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102037823_p47accelleration.jpg)
And the P51D:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1107818891_p51accelleration.jpg)
Again much father ahead after 1 min and completely out of the P38's league by 2 mins.
Facts are the P 38 was dead last in accelleration.
Lets look at the set up of the P38J for the JFC:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102467228_p38lsetup.jpg)
And how it stacked up against it's contemprary USAAF fighters:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102467287_p38opinions.jpg)
Facts are the men who might have to fly it in combat did not think much of the P38J after flying it when compared to other US Fighters and the enemy fighters they may have to face.
Facts are it had the highest wingloading, Highest Drag, and an unremarkable power loading.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101873588_p38drag.jpg)
You can get mad all you want Bug, but the facts speak for themselves.
I would certainly not be screaming in the forums about it being undermodeled.
All the best!
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by OIO
But the La7? definetely out-turned under 200mph by a 38 with flaps out.
Hmmm. That's odd. It is really nothing more than a cleaned up La-5FN. Same engine, wings and everything. IIRC they even reduced it's fuel capacity.
-
I think HTC has undermodeled the stick used to beat dead horses.:rolleyes:
By the way, the JFC is about as relevant and meaningful as your average congressional committee.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by OIO
But the La7? definetely out-turned under 200mph by a 38 with flaps out.
How can big and heavy bird turn with something like la-7? No matter how you look at it (wing loading, size, weight, power to weight ratio...) La-7 should beat p-38 into dust, in real life as in AH at speeds around 200mph. If not, well, that would defy any logic.
-
2big: a b26 and ju88 will out-turn the la7. them be much bigger and heavier than a 38. the fowlers increase wing area a lot.
crummp: those test start at 200mph. the 38 is a mediocre accelerator past that. try 50 to 200mph (speed of a turningfight) and see how well the 38 does vs 51 and 47 in comparison.
i shouldve worded it as best low speed accel :P but the whole post was about turning and low speed stuff ;)
-
Just an aside. In an unfortunate friendly fire incident on nov 7,1944. After being unexpectedly bounced by yaks, loosing 2 P38s, the 82nd FG engaged resulting 4 confirmed and 1 possible kills aginst the soviets without a further loss of a P38.
just came to mind.
I guess I should add that the yaks were ordered to bounce the P38s who were unaware that the battle lines had moved since their prior sortie, and were straifing the Russian lines instead of the Germans, Killing Soviet Lt Gen Kotov in the process.
-
wow talk about a lousy day :eek:
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
As was discussed in the other threads, this can be an indication of accelleration but is not a definative charactersitic.
Let's see how far ahead the P38J was against the Zeke in comparision with other USAAF fighters:
Crumpp
Hmmm...strange. In Thomas McGuire's "Combat Tactics in the South West Pacific" he explicity mentions that if you find yourself in trouble against a Zero or a Zeke, that you just extend and let the superior acceleration of the P-38 get you beyond gun range and then enter into a shallow climb and regain the altitude advantage because the Zero/Zeke will not be able to match.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Hmmm...strange. In Thomas McGuire's "Combat Tactics in the South West Pacific" he explicity mentions that if you find yourself in trouble against a Zero or a Zeke, that you just extend and let the superior acceleration of the P-38 get you beyond gun range and then enter into a shallow climb and regain the altitude advantage because the Zero/Zeke will not be able to match.
ack-ack
Hmmm. That wouldnt work very well if one test I remember of level accel only gave the US planes a few hundred feet of space from a zeke after somethin g like 30 seconds from 250 or 300 mph...
Plus the zero accels quite well with its high power to weight.
Maybe he was talking about dives?
-
Hmmm...strange. In Thomas McGuire's "Combat Tactics in the South West Pacific" he explicity mentions that if you find yourself in trouble against a Zero or a Zeke, that you just extend and let the superior acceleration of the P-38 get you beyond gun range and then enter into a shallow climb and regain the altitude advantage because the Zero/Zeke will not be able to match.
Very true AcK. However please read the post.
Crumpp says:
Let's see how far ahead the P38J was against the Zeke in comparision with other USAAF fighters.
The P 38 could outaccellerate the Zeke. It was by and far not the best accellerating USAAF fighter.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by OIO
with full flaps out at or under 200mph? yes wotan.
ill grant the E and F4 models will out-turn the 38.. i was reffering to the G models.
Karnak:
"Yaks and La-5/7"
I apologize i was typing a bit too fast. The Yak and LA5 should not be in the 'no problem to out-turn' You're right about those 2. I usually win turnfights vs yak and La5 because it ends up on the deck at stall speeds where the yak and La5 are at a disadvantage vs 38.
But the La7? definetely out-turned under 200mph by a 38 with flaps out.
The 38G with its crazy flap model will easily outurn a 109F4. Heck I hang with Spit Vs in the 38G...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The 38G with its crazy flap model will easily outurn a 109F4. Heck I hang with Spit Vs in the 38G...
you can even hang with a Spit V in the P-38J/L if you know how to fly the P-38.
ack-ack
-
AKAK, if you want I'll go cut you another stick. Oh, and I've got a book I can loan you entitled "How to Talk to an Anvil (if you really have to)".:cool:
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
you can even hang with a Spit V in the P-38J/L if you know how to fly the P-38.
ack-ack
I know, which just proves my point, The P38 is allready a great manouvering turner at low speeds. I think some of the 38 drivers are extremly spoiled ang just ask for more, which makes all this very funny.
So the question is, with this flap overspeed speed trick would the 38s then be better turners than even the spit V and Zeke?
That would be a hillarious statement about flight sims if it happend...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I know, which just proves my point, The P38 is allready a great manouvering turner at low speeds. I think some of the 38 drivers are extremly spoiled ang just ask for more, which makes all this very funny.
So the question is, with this flap overspeed speed trick would the 38s then be better turners than even the spit V and Zeke?
That would be a hillarious statement about flight sims if it happend...
The only P-38 driver I've seen ask for the auto-retract thing to kick in at a higher speed has been OIO. All the rest of us have just asked for a better solution to the auto-retracting flaps, like modeling the damage from over-speeding/stress. All we want is full control over our flaps and no other reason.
What is so scary about having full control of the flaps and the risks that are associated with it? Why do so many fear that?
ack-ack
-
As Savage pointed out in an earlier post in this thread, talking about implementing a better system for the flaps is beating a dead horse. HiTech has alread pretty much put this to rest when he mentioned in another thread about this that he has no plans on changing it. It's not because it's the best solution available, which it clearly not, but rather a game 'accessability' issue. So basically, the auto-retracting flaps is a hand holding, coddling feature implemented to make the flight curve easier for players.
ack-ack
-
Please excuse the long, two-part post, but I've tried to compile every bit of what we've discussed in the past, and every logic and reasoning behind why the auto-retract is here:
---------------------------------------------
The 'remove autoretraction' crowd has to understand, that giving full realistic control can sometimes actually deterr realism instead of enhance it. This point has been countlessly observed and demonstrated in IL2/FB in a most classic manner.
IL2/FB is a wonderful aircombat sim, one of the few worthy games in the market that could be considered as a true 'competition' to Aces High in terms of WW2 air combat immersion, realism, and gameplay.
Except the 1C staff are relatively inexperienced in how to model stuff under what agenda, as compared to HT and Pyro who started out as an online gamer like every one of us and had plenty of time to observe the tendencies of the gamers.
This kind of difference shows on how they modelled - for instance - the RPM/prop pitch system in IL2/FB.
In IL2/FB, the German planes are modelled in a fully realistic manner with the RPM and throttle control merged as one lever. The player can also realistically unlink the controls and shift the RPM control to manual levels by manipulating the prop pitch control, just like in the real plane.
However, the problem is, such manual control was hardly ever used in real life.
Only in utmost emergencies or limited conditions would it be ever used. In official Bf109 manuals manual control is only recommended when the plane falls under abnormal conditions - ie. extreme speed dives where something had to be done to stop the pilot from damaging the plane.
In the majority of normal combat cases the RPM+throttle control merged as one system offered more advantages to the pilot in the fact that the operation and flight of the plane was simplified.
Real life pilots sat in a real life cockpit - more switches and more things to control meant more pressure and complications under combat - thus, if the controls could be simplified despite a slight performance disadvantage, this was actually more advantageous overall, than the pilot having to control everything himself.
Its sort of like the bubble-top canopies - slight performance disadvantage, but overall advantage considering the importance of SA. However, us gamers don't have to fight such complications.
The end result is that in Il2/FB multiplayer combats, the manual control system of German planes has sort of degenerated into a manually controlled WEP system by kicking the plane RPM upto levels it would not be used in real life due to maintenance issues.
People set the prop pitch control to a slider and manually overrev the engine just under the point where it would overheat and damage itself. The result is a Bf109 or a Fw190 with acceleration or climb performance over its normally observed levels.
In short,
Offering full realism in control over their plane, backfired and degenerated into an unrealistic exploit which people would fly their planes in a most unlikely manner observed in real life.
Is this realistic?
Technically, its possible. If the pilot can keep watch over the engine temperatures and manually adjust it. For a limited time such use was actualy seen - such as German fighters in Finnish airfields, which were usually makeshift with short runways. The pilot would overrev the engine for a shorter take-off run.
However, situationally, this is sorely unrealstic. The prop pitch lever is at the left side of the pilot, next to the RPM+throttle lever. In a combat, a pilot would have to manipulate two~three levers at the same time with his left hand, while simultaneously pulling stick forces, pushing buttons, moving flap levers and stuff with his right hand.
Such overrev controls were not for combat purposes and yet, in the game environment of Il2/FB, it happens all the time - so frequent that its almost become mandatory. It's considered stupid to not use manual overrev while going vertical, for example.
It is the same in the way they modelled the flap systems in Il2/FB.
They emphasized on control realism rather than look at this from an overall situational realism point of view.
They assumed an arbitrary(but not too unreasonable) safety margin on the flaps, and added a few features such as flap deploying more slowly under high air pressures.
Thus, even if the official plane manual would suggest that a certain plane's flap not be used over X amount of speed IAS, a pilot is able to deploy flaps almost 150~200km/h higher than the speed it was sanctioned for.
Like some have mentioned, this could be possible, even probable, in some cases. A flap wouldn't just dislodge from its joints or be instantly destroyed because the speed went over the limit. There would be certain safety margins the manufacturers would have considered. So, technically, a pilot probably can start lowering, or maintain a certain flap position despite some speed difference over the limit.
However, again, is this realstic?
Technically feasible. However, situationally unrealistic.
(contd.)
-
(contd.)
Flying a plane wasn't for fun of combat for real life pilots. In most cases the pilots were trained not to even go near the circumstances where they might need flaps for fighting an enemy.
They would stick to the simplest of maneuvering, rely much more in teamwork than personal skill. Only a handful of experts would ever use flaps on a regular basis, but even those were limited to certain conditions - ie. when they think they could get a firing solution momentarily by deploying flaps and hanging in the turn, without having to bug out and extend.
What would usually happen if a pilot found out that his limited use of flaps was to no avail? Would he still attempt to stick to the bogey's six? Definately not. They would just extend out, and let the wingmen do their job until he has regained his alt/speed status to attempt a second attack. Only when it was a 1vs1 duel(which was extremely rare in real life) which one side would die if he lost, would the pilot risk so much, just so he could survive.
Now, to that situational fact, add in the difficulties and complications of controlling multiple position lever systems during a stall-fight which required tense concentration.
Hold the stick with two hands, let left hand off and adjust throttle, grab the stick again, let right hand off and move flap lever, grab stick again, woops the airspeed changed, let right hand off again, grab flap lever again and pull flaps up.. and over and over again.
Again, to all that, add another fact, that pilots did not gamble with their lives by breaking SOPs. They had strict limitations and responsibilities to take care of their aircraft.
Its fairly easy to manage landings and takeoffs in simulation games. We manage 200mph ditches everyday in the game. However, in real life, if anything that is requried for a landing procedure was damaged and inoperative, it could mean life and death for the pilot. We hear unfortunate tales of airshow pilots with engine troubles of their vintage planes crashing to death even in relatively flat terrains. Ditching was a dangerous thing to do, and a normal landing procedure being impossible meant you had to try and ditch - or bail out.
Flaps, are basically not for combat use. It is a secondary flight control used for stabilizing the plane under certain conditions. They were most frequently used in takeoffs and landings. A 'combat flap' wasn't built for combat purpose in the first place. It is nothing but a normal flap with an intermediate position which could be considered useful in certain combat situations - hence, the name. Combat flap is not a flap type, only a certain position on a normal flap. A stuck, damaged, unevenly deployed flap would mean a very dangerous landing for the pilot.
So, would a pilot, for sake of combat, risk damaging his flaps on purpose? If he sees an enemy plane trying a desparate split-S, will he try and follow it with his flaps down, despite the danger that the increasing speed could damage his flap?
Or would he have tried to play it safe, and keep his plane under the recommendations of what the manufacturers told you to abide by? Not follow the split-S at all, let the wingman take the pass, or retract the flap before going into a speed-gaining maneuver?
What happened in Il2/FB with that kind of 'full control' modelling? Well, like Karnak mentioned, the game turned into a 'flapfest'. Deploying flaps is a mandatory procedure for every bit of maneuvering in Il2/FB. They know the absolute line where the flaps take damage is set, so they will exploit every mile and kilometer per hour they can, before they have to retract flaps.
They will keep the flaps down as airbreaks in overshoot/extreme low speed maneuvering . Who cares if it goes over 100km/h of its recommended setting?
Besides, even if the line is crossed and the flap is jammed stuck, you would still be able to retain the effect you needed by the flaps. So, you will shoot down the enemy plane, and then you can rtb to safety, right?
Why try to abide by the real life recommendations, or try to fly in the manner resembling that of real life... when you can just go through unnecessary risks that might damage your plane.... but still get satisfying results by shooting down the enemy plane?
What's there to lose?
It's only a flap jam in the worst case!
I can risk that much.. I don't need the flaps to land.. right?
All thats important is keeping the flaps down so they control my speed, whether or not I damage it in the process, right!?
I mean, this is technically possible and realistic, right?
There you have it.
The EXACT reason why HT will not allow flap use in any kind of form other than was sanctioned in real life recommendations.
Even jamming the flaps once they go over the limit, is not an option. It's either autoretract, or complete destruction and loss of flap flight effects.
In whatever way it could be set up, the penalty must be severe or influential enough to make people think twice before doing something they were not supposed to do. Nobody is going to overwork the flaps and gonna get away with it.
Basically, that's the whole reasoning behind it. If your flap autoretracts, you crossed the line which you shouldn't have even approached in the first place.
......
Comments
If you think you are in a situation where your momentary use of flaps would backfire, and not achieve the results you thought it would, then you should be thinking of getting out of that situation and try again, instead of thinking of how you can push the flap to its limit and risk a deadly stall.
I don't think this is too hard to understand... is it?
Why so obsessed in staying at the target's six o'c? If the flaps cannot hold anymore, then you've failed in your intent. Time to back off and try another pass. Isn't this the normal course of action every fighter plane should take?
Or is their some subliminal willing inserted into the P-38, that its pilot should always try the harshest of maneuvering, always try to grab the bogey's six and never let go, and always outmaneuver a superior turning Spitfire or a Hurricane and beat them in their own game and gloat about it?
This is an obsession IMO.
-
Originally posted by OIO
[..]
Leit: the 38's flaps retract and cause the aircraft to spin out of control. Thats the problem. a 190 uses flaps as a last resort and at really low speeds, the 38 HAS to use flaps under 250mph or anything will turn inside it.
[..]
I'm not saying you're wrong, many people have claimed they lose control when the flaps autoretract.
Do you have a film of this happening? :confused:
I do spin my 38 sometimes but only when using too much rudder, jerking the stick too much at high AOA, accelerated stall, or a screwup on my part doing a hammerhead, never once because the flaps popped in.
That said, I dont use combat trim, maybe that's the problem?
-
I am kinda new to this game, been playing for just 2 months, and this is my first ww2 areal combat sim i ever played. Before starting to play i looked for some information , esp. fist hand information about ww2 areal combat. Being a Russian I found lots of artciles available on internet on areal combat in ww2 on the Eastern front, below is one of the interesting links, its a fighters manual for yak and la pilots against Bf109 and FW190 dated 1943. dogfighting (http://www.airforce.ru/history/dogfighting/dogfight1.htm)
BTW that site has a few very interesting interviews with former Russian fighters. In short, every source of information states that using flaps in engagements is not adviced as it will greatly slow down the plane and make it an easy pray that even your wingman will not be able to protect as he would have to slow down himself and risk his plane too. Furthermore turn fights are not generally welcomed even tho yaks and la5 would get on german's tail in usually 3 full circles for about the same reason, getting slow and become an easy target.
Everyday in MA even experinced pilots are doing things that former ww2 vets would consider foolish, but we are all playing for fun. There was no fun in fighting ww2. This is the biggest difference. So its unwise to demand the same gameplay as the ww2 warfare was, unless of cource HTC is planning to introduce a hardcore mode, that once dead your account is deleted but your credit card is charged for a year of play :lol
-
Originally posted by Despair
HTC is planning to introduce a hardcore mode, that once dead your account is deleted but your credit card is charged for a year of play :lol
^
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Comedy gold! despair!
-
Technically feasible. However, situationally unrealistic.
so implementing something that didnt exist is more realistic?
i do think you answered AKAKs question though of"what is everyone afraid of?"
Leit: i think im the only 38 driver (i use that term loosely for me) that still uses combat trim. :o but i like it and i wont change.:aok
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
HiTech has alread pretty much put this to rest when he mentioned in another thread about this that he has no plans on changing it. It's not because it's the best solution available, which it clearly not, but rather a game 'accessability' issue. So basically, the auto-retracting flaps is a hand holding, coddling feature implemented to make the flight curve easier for players.
That is not what HiTech said. That is what you claim. HiTech did not say it was an accessibility issue, he said it was a realistic combat issue.
Originally posted by hitech
Ummm...that's why we're asking for a more realistic modeling approach to this problem. In RL, if the flaps were deployed at 250mph, they didn't break or get damaged at 251mph.
I call BS on that it would be a more relistic. Namly because the consiquences are much different in how you would use the flaps then they would in real life. Basicly uping the limits from the specs would cause more unrealistic behavior while flying.
2nd your argument is still not against auto retracting flaps, but wrather that you want the limits raised.
HiTech[/b]
-
kweassa, I dont know why you insist on attributing inaccurate critiquing of 38 drivers tactics in these discussions. We all know that the 38s strength is working in the verticle. Verticle cant last forever, so that leads to a loop fight. A loop fights max speed is reached at the bottom apex of the loop. Often the magic auto-retract speed is where? Very near the bottom apex of the loop. Hence it becomes an issue when the controls are taken out of the pilots hands less than a second or two before the plane will lose speed anyways.
Oops lunch is over...not that I have a 2 page manifesto to write, but....Later!
-
Murdr: So your saying snapping the flaps off at the bottom of the loop does not take the control out of the pilots hands?
Or do you just wish the limit's raised so you can use flaps at higher speeds at the bottom of the loop?
HiTech
-
Actually some people use landing gear down as last resource airbrake to force overshoots or to do not overshoot. When speed raises landing gear raises automatically? No, it breaks.
Why the same rule is not present for the flaps? Or, why the same rule is not present for the landing gear?
-
Originally posted by MANDO
Why the same rule is not present for the flaps? Or, why the same rule is not present for the landing gear?
The only people I see doing that fly F4Us, and those actually used the gear as a form of airbraking. Occasionally I'll see someone hilariously try to drop the gear to bleed even more speed while slow, but I have never seen a situation where this helped rather than hurt them.
You make a good point though, Mandoble.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
So implementing something that didnt exist is more realistic?
Yup.
Why do you think our planes have no direct prop pitch control, and all use a generic constant-speed prop/RPM control? Or, why do you think combat trim was implemented? Just to help newbies out?
I do think you answered AKAKs question though of"what is everyone afraid of?"
Nobody's afraid of anything. Even with autoretract most P-38 experts can still manage their flaps in a good manner.
The problem is overall attitude and outcome, concerning realism in controlling stuff.
You are supposed to be worried about using certain devices when it is not recommended. The autoretract makes sure of that, so people try to avoid situations that would also not be likely in real life(either that, or push it too far and stall out. Whichever way.).
-
Or, why do you think combat trim was implemented? Just to help newbies out?
yes, because i can check or uncheck the box.
as far as the "afraid of" thing and your last 2 page post, you talked about "flapfest" and people flying the plane in a way that wasnt realistic yet "technically feasible". thats what i was getting at. seemed a lot of that post was directed towards the fact the plane could "technically" fly like that, but nobody pushed it, and flew it differently than could "technically" be possible.
maybe i misunderstood...:confused:
-
kweassa, I dont know why you insist on attributing inaccurate critiquing of 38 drivers tactics in these discussions.
Take a wild guess.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the P-38 drivers are the only guys who are asking for something which has been refused, again.. again.. again.. again.. and again.
It 's like you guys are the new generation RAMs of Aces High 2.
We all know that the 38s strength is working in the verticle. Verticle cant last forever, so that leads to a loop fight. A loop fights max speed is reached at the bottom apex of the loop. Often the magic auto-retract speed is where? Very near the bottom apex of the loop. Hence it becomes an issue when the controls are taken out of the pilots hands less than a second or two before the plane will lose speed anyways.
We all understand you NEED the flap at that moment. Unfortunately, you can't HAVE it at that moment because the speed is over that which has been sanctioned.
Try to understand that the "NEED" bucket does not have any connections with the "HAVE" bucket.
-
yes, because i can check or uncheck the box.
Nope.
According to HT, the CT is the only way he can possibly implement a real plane system that requires a certain stick feel. However, it has certain limitations under certain circumstances, which is why you are allowed to override CT and go into manual.
So actually, turning on CT all the time and flying it, is more realistc than having to manual trim everything everymoment.
as far as the "afraid of" thing and your last 2 page post, you talked about "flapfest" and people flying the plane in a way that wasnt realistic yet "technically feasible". thats what i was getting at. seemed a lot of that post was directed towards the fact the plane could "technically" fly like that, but nobody pushed it, and flew it differently than could "technically" be possible.
maybe i misunderstood...
I understood the word 'afraid' as an ego thing. As in;
* Are you afraid that the P-38 will become a superplane if you allow full flap control?
* Naw, I ain't afraid of the superplane, I'm only afraid of the general attitude towards reckless and unrealistic combat
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Please excuse the long, two-part post, but I've tried to compile every bit of what we've discussed in the past, and every logic and reasoning behind why the auto-retract is here:
---------------------------------------------
The 'remove autoretraction' crowd has to understand, that giving full realistic control can sometimes actually deterr realism instead of enhance it. This point has been countlessly observed and demonstrated in IL2/FB in a most classic manner.
The only reason why we have auto-retracting flaps is to make the game more accessible to the non-hard core flyer. HiTech has already said as much in a previous thread.
As a person that has played both WB and AW, both games which allowed you full control over your flaps and experience the risks associated with it, your example of using IL2 is quite laughable at best. But that's just your pattern of using selective "evidence" to fit your agenda.
Why are you so afraid of getting rid of the auto-retracting flaps Kweassa? Afraid of a little too much 'realism' in your game?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Karnak
That is not what HiTech said. That is what you claim. HiTech did not say it was an accessibility issue, he said it was a realistic combat issue.
I call BS on that it would be a more relistic. Namly because the consiquences are much different in how you would use the flaps then they would in real life. Basicly uping the limits from the specs would cause more unrealistic behavior while flying.
2nd your argument is still not against auto retracting flaps, but wrather that you want the limits raised.
HiTech
[/B][/QUOTE]
Ahhh...I see you have a case of the "selective post reading" syndrome. If you look a couple of post down from that one you quoted, you'll see me call B.S. and then you'll see the post from HiTech where is says it boils down to a game accessability issue. Keep on reading Karnak and try again, thanks for playing.
ack-ack
-
Bah.
Edit again.
What is it that the P-38 drivers want that is not rooted in an intention to make their pet fighter even more potent?
I see the rabid P-38 fans in the same exact light as the rabid Luftwaffe fans such as Barbi and RAM. They ignore, or discount the historical records and accounts and put on a large persecution act in order to look like martyrs.
1) The P-38 is not the only fighter to get bit bad by the flaps autoretracting instead of holding out above their rated speed.
2) The historical record of combat performance by the varied WWII fighters does not match up well with the available performance data.
3) The desire to have an airframe capability modeled so as to use it in an unrealistic manner mystifies me.
-
DriverS u ever seen me whine or complain request on the P38 ??
I like it the way it is.
-
The only reason why we have auto-retracting flaps is to make the game more accessible to the non-hard core flyer. HiTech has already said as much in a previous thread.
It is as much a realism issue as basic balancing. Even if you what you claim is true, makes no difference in the fact the autoretraction serves its dual purpose by forcibly implying that the pilots abide by the sanctioned control limitations.
As a person that has played both WB and AW, both games which allowed you full control over your flaps and experience the risks associated with it, your example of using IL2 is quite laughable at best. But that's just your pattern of using selective "evidence" to fit your agenda.
So your evidence of two dead games, is superior over my one evidence of the most influential WW2 aircombat game for the last few years?
Ever consider the possibility that the way you were flying in AW or WB with the flaps out, would be totally unrealistic in the first place?
Why are you so afraid of getting rid of the auto-retracting flaps Kweassa? Afraid of a little too much 'realism' in your game?
More like distortion of realism to one's personal tastes in the way you people want, Ack. Read the boring but informative two-part post again. Its all covered there.
Basically, you guys want to step over the line, which no pther plane is allowed to cross. The recommendations and settings are all there in the flight manual. You guys want to operate your system outside of that recommendations and still get away with it scot-free.
If that happens for one plane, what's there to stop other people from asking, let's say, the direct prop-pitch control installed in some of their planes, Instead of that generic constant-speed prop installations which makes sure all planes fly as they are limited too by actual datasets and figures. ?
Every one of those planes could use it for a nifty purpose of getting 10 extra mph more than the listed official speeds for their fightercraft.
After all, it's technically possible. Allowing it is can only be more realism, right? Shortly after everybody's flying their plane at speeds higher than any of the records indicate.. and that's still more realistic, since it allowed full control to the pilot.
Well, how about making a deal which everyone of us would be content with?
Ask HT to model only the P-38 without autoretract. If the speed goes over, the flap will rip off.
There. More accessibility to your plane.
If accessibility is really what you want, that should make the P-38 drivers happy. You got the "more accessibility" you wanted. The free accessibility upto the point you can damage your flaps on purpose.
-
The only reason why we have auto-retracting flaps is to make the game more accessible to the non-hard core flyer.
Hitting a button isn't anything 'hard core'. That is comical.
If flaps retract just hit the button again and quit whining...
The P-38 is nothing special, it doesn't require 'special treatment'. Just fly the plane how it is modeled.
Ya know this auto retract thing has been the same in AH for as long as I remember, it wasn't until the influx of AW that the cries of 'auto retract bias' in regards to the P-38 started filling the board. Just because you could flap flaps around over there doesn't mean we need it here.
Those of you who claim IL2 is a flap fest well in the original Il2 game that was true. In Il2 now flaps jam quite regularly if you over speed in anything above combat setting. In all honestly I'd rather have umm auto retract because I seem to constantly jam mine while in the 190s. A jam means rtb quick or die.
However, so what if they auto retract, break or jam. Either way the limit is the same. Forget about all the non-sense about a randomizer. Anything random in these games gets whined about the most.
That's why you can't have gun jams or random eng / component failures. It not worth the whines over all.
It seems to me after this amount of whining folks would just adapt and forget all about whining for change...
HT has been clear on this since these whines started...
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Bah.
Edit again.
What is it that the P-38 drivers want that is not rooted in an intention to make their pet fighter even more potent?
I see the rabid P-38 fans in the same exact light as the rabid Luftwaffe fans such as Barbi and RAM. They ignore, or discount the historical records and accounts and put on a large persecution act in order to look like martyrs.
1) The P-38 is not the only fighter to get bit bad by the flaps autoretracting instead of holding out above their rated speed.
2) The historical record of combat performance by the varied WWII fighters does not match up well with the available performance data.
3) The desire to have an airframe capability modeled so as to use it in an unrealistic manner mystifies me.
This is not about trying to make the P-38 even more potent than it already is. All we would like to see is a realistic approach to how the damage is applied to flaps from over-speeding/stress. How can this equate making the P-38 better than it already is? All it is doing is adding a realistic feature to the game and replacing a non-realistic approach that exists now. Why is that so hard for you guys to grasp?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Ever consider the possibility that the way you were flying in AW or WB with the flaps out, would be totally unrealistic in the first place?
Not at all since I ran the risk of having my flaps become damaged from over-speeding/stress and I'd retract them before it got to that point. Sometimes I wasn't paying attention and allowed them to get jammed a few times and it cost me big time. Lesson learned and probably had my flaps jam less than a half a dozen times in AW and never had them jam in WB.
ack-ack
-
The only people I see doing that fly F4Us, and those actually used the gear as a form of airbraking. Occasionally I'll see someone hilariously try to drop the gear to bleed even more speed while slow, but I have never seen a situation where this helped rather than hurt them.
AFAIK lowering the gear on the Corsar was the airbrake/divebrake.
Crumpp
-
It's always interesting to see how these threads drift towards "My AH plane is modeled incorrectly and the performance isn't as good as it should be, while your AH plane is overmodelled and should fly worse then it does" :)
Dan/Slack
Who can take the most overmodelled plane in AH and still die everytime :)
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
This is not about trying to make the P-38 even more potent than it already is. All we would like to see is a realistic approach to how the damage is applied to flaps from over-speeding/stress. How can this equate making the P-38 better than it already is? All it is doing is adding a realistic feature to the game and replacing a non-realistic approach that exists now. Why is that so hard for you guys to grasp?
ack-ack
From one perspective, yes. From another, no.
From the perspective of the technical strength of the flaps on many/most/all? aircraft what you are asking for is more realistic.
From a combat perspective however, it is a great deal less realistic. As Wotan's post indicates, if you loosen the restrictions people will abuse it. You yourself may not, but can you honestly claim that somebody who thinks dive bombing in Lancasters is fine and dandy will not? Of course you can't say that. There are just way too many players who will gladly risk breaking, or even assuredly break, their flaps if it gets them the kill no matter what it will do to their survival in the future. Thus you have a whole bunch of people who are using their flaps in ways not intended and at massively greater rates than in WWII. That is where I get my "Flapfest" snide comments from. Going back to Wotan and Il-2, there is no reason he should be having anything like a common problem witrh jammed flaps in an Fw190, yet he does. Why? Because flaps are being used in combat way, way more often than they should be. In Il-2 it now seems that flaps jam, as you have requested in the past, and people abuse that by continuing to use them in combat.
Bottom line, you are more interested in technical realism, I am more interested in realistic ACM (even though I am bad at it). At least that is how it comes across.
Now, why do people like Kweassa and I single out the P-38 fans and accuse them of wanting to get a tweak for the P-38? Because it is only the P-38 fans that are making this request and they constantly harp about how much of a detriment it is to the P-38.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Murdr: So your saying snapping the flaps off at the bottom of the loop does not take the control out of the pilots hands?
Im sure it does take control away.
Or do you just wish the limit's raised so you can use flaps at higher speeds at the bottom of the loop?
HiTech
Its a common experience for me to have the flap.wav playing double because I was at the bottom when the auto-retract took over, and Ive already started the next loop and re-deployed them. Add a 1-2 second delay between auto-retract/deploy and its even more common.
I dont wish the limit raised. I wish to see a result of breeching the limit that is consistant with any other mechanical/load bearing structure. A 6000RPM rated engine could concevelably fail at 6001RPM for a 1 second duration, but its not very likely. In the same token you dont constantly run it at 6200RMP or rev it to 7000RMP and expect to get much lifespan out of it. I wish there was a model to that effect on flaps. I know whether I am 1deg or 45deg from transitioning ROD to ROC, and it would be nice to make a judment call based on that knowlege. Hence the 'control' factor.
However your 'retract them' or 'break them' policy is clear, so its more of an academic discussion than anything.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Murdr: So your saying snapping the flaps off at the bottom of the loop does not take the control out of the pilots hands?
Or do you just wish the limit's raised so you can use flaps at higher speeds at the bottom of the loop?
HiTech
HT, if you take a P-38, fly it level... bank the plane about 45 degrees with horizon and just pull the stick up and keep it on a constant high-g turn... dropping flaps as the speed decreases you will notice that on the portion of the turn that goes below the horizon the speed indicator will hit the retract speed for a mere moment before the constant turning noses the plane up from being below horizon to being at horizon or above it.
When that marker is hit the flaps retract..and since you are pulling hard up on the stick (trying to get a lead shot on the con) in the very moment the flaps retract, the P-38 will spin out of control... and in almost every case whoever you were about to shoot down turns into you as you spin and shoots the p38 up.
In this case, in a combat situation like that, if my flaps had just snapped out i wouldnt spin out of control, id just lose my turning ability... i will definetely lose the fight if i try to keep turning but i at least would have the chance to nose down and RUN away. Currently the spin-out is guaranteed death.
I posted what I could think of would work. Some (or most) dont like it, thats fine by me. I just want that problem with the 38 gone ...my way or anyone else's way as long as it works.
If the retract point was between 50 and 80mph higher for all flap retract points the problem with the 38 retract=spin would be solved at any altitude imo.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Try to understand that the "NEED" bucket does not have any connections with the "HAVE" bucket.
If you want to talk containers, try to understand I have dozens of buckets in my shop that say 5 US GALs, but you know there's actually room for another 20oz in its capacity.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Bah.
Edit again.
What is it that the P-38 drivers want that is not rooted in an intention to make their pet fighter even more potent?
I see the rabid P-38 fans in the same exact light as the rabid Luftwaffe fans such as Barbi and RAM. They ignore, or discount the historical records and accounts and put on a large persecution act in order to look like martyrs.
1) The P-38 is not the only fighter to get bit bad by the flaps autoretracting instead of holding out above their rated speed.
2) The historical record of combat performance by the varied WWII fighters does not match up well with the available performance data.
3) The desire to have an airframe capability modeled so as to use it in an unrealistic manner mystifies me.
Understand that recommended deployment speed and actual speed required to damage the P-38's flaps are not the same. According to P-38 pilots (Heiden, Richardson and Ilfrey), damage only became a risk as you approached 300 mph TAS. Moreover, P-38 flaps would not retract (a physical impossibility), but would bend, jam and often pop out of their tracks. Crew Chiefs did not like their pilots tearing up the aircraft, so abuse of this sort was relatively rare. Unlike, that is, abuse of engines in combat.
I do think that this would not be easy to model, nor necessary. I have very few issues with auto-retract because I pay close attention to my airspeed, pulling off power as required. Moreover, when it does occur, I have no difficulty maintaining control. As those who have flown with or against me will testify, I fly the Lightning on the ragged edge quite often, or at least when it is prudent to do so.
I agree with Grunherz, the P-38G is remarkably agile, more than capable of giving the various turn fighters a very, very hard time.
My regards,
Widewing
-
OIO,
The solution is simple. Don't do that.
Kick in some rudder to keep your nose higher so that you don't overspeed.
The other night I was flying the Ki-84 and was in a slow turn fight with a Spitfire. At some point I breached the 166mph limit and my flaps autoretracted and the Ki-84 mushed out forcing me to abandon the circle and climb away.
Was that AH2's fault for autoretracting the flaps? The Ki-84s fault for not handling the retraction well or my fault for overspeeding?
In my opinion it was my fault for not paying enough attention to my airspeed.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
AFAIK lowering the gear on the Corsar was the airbrake/divebrake.
Crumpp
And do the Corsair landing gear autoretract when exceeding some speed?
-
And do the Corsair landing gear autoretract when exceeding some speed?
So the P38's dive brakes automatically retract, the aircraft compress, and the pilot die when they are supposed too?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102176665_p-38page30.jpg)
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Karnak
There are just way too many players who will gladly risk breaking, or even assuredly break, their flaps if it gets them the kill no matter what it will do to their survival in the future. Thus you have a whole bunch of people who are using their flaps in ways not intended and at massively greater rates than in WWII. That is where I get my "Flapfest" snide comments from.
This comment reminded me of something that goes to the acusations of anti-autoflap equating to "overmodel my plane". Specifically in the P38, but also in other models, the flap notch speed limits are very close to the pilots G tolerence limit. It does me no good whatsoever to turn circles overspeeding my flaps when Im blacking out.
That is why I cant remember when I last had a spin induced by the auto-retract. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I know by G load when Im close to the limit, and ease off the stick for the auto-retract (or retract them myself) Hence easing off the stick, I create less drag and accelerate to a faster speed than I otherwise would have and the flaps auto-retract.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
So the P38's dive brakes automatically retract, the aircraft compress, and the pilot die when they are supposed too?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1102176665_p-38page30.jpg)
Crumpp
It doesnt say dive flaps are in structual in jeprodry at 15-20mph of placard. And I didnt see the spec where the pilot dies for that matter.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
So the P38's dive brakes automatically retract, the aircraft compress, and the pilot die when they are supposed too?
Or even better, the flaps break, the aircraft compress and the pilot also dies.
-
I say remove the auto flap feature, but, add a random feature that says when you over stress your flaps and they break, you get a random chance that they:
a: rip off on one side, and not the other...
b: (as in 38 and others) one side pops out of track and the other stays in.
c: one side jams in a different setting then the other. (most likely)
d: the flap actuating mechanisms rip away and you end up with in operable hinged surfaces hanging down beating the poo out of the trailing edge structure. (very bad)
e: the flap damage causes an over stress to the rear spar and makes the aircraft less capable of Hi G's that you are already in helping to induce failure.
-
It doesnt say dive flaps are in structual in jeprodry at 15-20mph of placard. And I didnt see the spec where the pilot dies for that matter.
They just arbitrarily set the limits......:rolleyes:
If you surpass the placard limits the Pilot gets a free pizza.
This is kind of nonsense Karnak is talking about here:
They ignore, or discount the historical records and accounts and put on a large persecution act in order to look like martyrs.
Crumpp
-
Just FYI, for the less informed here. There is no published structural limit for the DIVE FLAPS, at least that I can find. The DIVE FLAPS are good to go until the whole plane comes apart. The placard is for the plane, not the flaps.
In fact, there are only loose SUGGESTIONS for the MANEUVERING FLAPS. It says speeds over 250MPH MAY damage the flaps if they are deployed. It says use of the MANEUVERING FLAPS in excess will result in the danger of being slow. Doesn't say it will damage the plane. The SUGGESTIONS are TACTICAL, and not STRUCTURAL.
How this got from MANEUVERING FLAPS to DIVE FLAPS I'll never know. But given the participants in the thread I'm not at all surprised. How they got here is obvious.
AH II ain't IL2, and it ain't Warbirds either. Just because things happen there doesn't mean they'll happen here.
There's no tactical advantage to deploying flaps above 250MPH. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the plane knows that.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
From one perspective, yes. From another, no.
From the perspective of the technical strength of the flaps on many/most/all? aircraft what you are asking for is more realistic.
From a combat perspective however, it is a great deal less realistic. As Wotan's post indicates, if you loosen the restrictions people will abuse it. You yourself may not, but can you honestly claim that somebody who thinks dive bombing in Lancasters is fine and dandy will not? Of course you can't say that. There are just way too many players who will gladly risk breaking, or even assuredly break, their flaps if it gets them the kill no matter what it will do to their survival in the future. Thus you have a whole bunch of people who are using their flaps in ways not intended and at massively greater rates than in WWII.
Bad analogy with the Lancasters as the only reason they are allowed to that is there isn't an a system in place to prevent the release of bombs past a certain angle. If there was a system in place that prevented bombs from being released if a plane was a certain angle, then you'd no longer see diving bombing buffs. Must like the system eagl had suggest awhile ago but that's not relevant to this topic.
I think Wotan pretty much revealed the true reason why most are against the removal of the auto-flaps. You guys want your hands held and don't want to have to worry about managing your flaps and gladly will let the system basically do it for you instead of letting you face the risks.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
They just arbitrarily set the limits......:rolleyes:
If you surpass the placard limits the Pilot gets a free pizza.
This is kind of nonsense Karnak is talking about here:
Crumpp
No, its the kind of nonsense where you point at a source and claim it says what you want it to say when it does not. As to the rest hilts already covered.
-
This discussion seems oddly familiar. Airframes are constantly stressed over there "factory" set limits. They were over stressed in WWII and they are over stressed in todays modern fighters. We've already discussed the links that some have tried to post to fit their pro auto flaps stance.
Fact is that factory set limit is not a critical breaking point. It's a point in which the risk of damage to the system has increased to a point in which the manufacturer deems it necessary to post a placard to warn aircrews that damage to the system is probable beyond that point.
Todays airframes have builtin fail safes so that pilots can't over stress some systems. There are 2 systems on the F-15 that have these fail safes, 1 is the flaps and the other is the speed brake. Flaps use a device that monitors airspeed and opens the circuit to take away the voltage from the actuators. The speed brake uses a blow back valve that once enough pressure builds on the surface of the speed brake the valve opens to relieve the pressure and the speed brake is forced down by the airflow.
Not many WWII aircraft were using these types of fail safe devices. I'm sure that there were many instances of items being over stressed and damaged because aircrews went beyond "factory limits". Look how many airframes from WWII were taken beyond these limits in dives and some airframes stood up to it and some didn't. Key here is the failures were random to say the least above even the critical limits set by manufacturers. This means you are taking a chance once you are above these to damage your airframe which is in fact realistic. It's not about gaming the game. People can do that already and they do it on a daily basis. If realism is what you want then random critical limit failures is the way to go. If gaming the game is what your worried about then I'm sure many folks can come up with a list of items that need to be fixed.
Military equipment has always been driven beyond its factory limits and always will be. It's not always about pressing those limits just for a kill it's also about pressing those limits to survive. Something that is as old as war itself.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
This discussion seems oddly familiar. Airframes are constantly stressed over there "factory" set limits. They were over stressed in WWII and they are over stressed in todays modern fighters. We've already discussed the links that some have tried to post to fit their pro auto flaps stance.
Fact is that factory set limit is not a critical breaking point. It's a point in which the risk of damage to the system has increased to a point in which the manufacturer deems it necessary to post a placard to warn aircrews that damage to the system is probable beyond that point.
Todays airframes have builtin fail safes so that pilots can't over stress some systems. There are 2 systems on the F-15 that have these fail safes, 1 is the flaps and the other is the speed brake. Flaps use a device that monitors airspeed and opens the circuit to take away the voltage from the actuators. The speed brake uses a blow back valve that once enough pressure builds on the surface of the speed brake the valve opens to relieve the pressure and the speed brake is forced down by the airflow.
Not many WWII aircraft were using these types of fail safe devices. I'm sure that there were many instances of items being over stressed and damaged because aircrews went beyond "factory limits". Look how many airframes from WWII were taken beyond these limits in dives and some airframes stood up to it and some didn't. Key here is the failures were random to say the least above even the critical limits set by manufacturers. This means you are taking a chance once you are above these to damage your airframe which is in fact realistic. It's not about gaming the game. People can do that already and they do it on a daily basis. If realism is what you want then random critical limit failures is the way to go. If gaming the game is what your worried about then I'm sure many folks can come up with a list of items that need to be fixed.
Military equipment has always been driven beyond its factory limits and always will be. It's not always about pressing those limits just for a kill it's also about pressing those limits to survive. Something that is as old as war itself.
Dammit man, common sense ain't allowed here. The "experts" are "educating" the P-38 people.:rolleyes:
-
There's one note in the P-38 pilot's manual seems to have been overlooked. Speed limitations for flaps are listed on page 21, section 1, paragraph b, Airspeed limitations, as:
Full flaps: 150 mph IAS
50% flaps: 250 mph IAS
Is the 8 degree "Maneuver" setting less than 50%?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Is the 8 degree "Maneuver" setting less than 50%?
The Maneuvering flap position is 50% entention.
-
No, its the kind of nonsense where you point at a source and claim it says what you want it to say when it does not. As to the rest hilts already covered.
The Dive Flap limits are clearly set and were posted in reply to a point brought up about the Corsairs Dive Brakes.
I did not know the P38 was the first airplane on the moon.
Crumpp
-
Again, we've reached another full circle, and have to start all over again.
Karnak hit the nail on the head. Kudos for explaining things in such a simple and direct-to-the-point matter(it is a quality I seriously lack). We're talking about technical feasibility vs. situational realism. Sometimes, increasing technical realism coincides with situational realism, other times it does not.
Karnak's example on the Lancaster is right on the spot - many people have been complaining to HT about divebombing buffs. HT commented that he wished not to take away the possibility of shallow angle bombing in four-engined buffs.
So, in a Lancaster with horizontally set bomb bays, would it be possible to divebomb? Technically, no reason why not. Except, such things hardly, if ever, happened in real life. As opposed to 'real life', what do we have in the game? 3~4k buffs in a suicidal non-markered dive bomb run, time and time again.
Bad analogy with the Lancasters as the only reason they are allowed to that is there isn't an a system in place to prevent the release of bombs past a certain angle. If there was a system in place that prevented bombs from being released if a plane was a certain angle, then you'd no longer see diving bombing buffs. Must like the system eagl had suggest awhile ago but that's not relevant to this topic.
Why is it bad analogy? It's technically possible.
It's not relevant to this topic? It is THE example that is relevant to this very topic Ack.
If HT puts in a system in place to prevent the release of bombs past a certain angle, that means implementing an unrealistic device which limits the accessibility, which wasn't there in real life. The only thing that prevented real life Lanc crew from doing such a thing was the burden of real life itself.
Lancs in the MA, are doing something that's technically possible, but situationally impossible. So which should be considered more important? The freedom to control their planes upto the point that freedom distorts reality? Or to put in an 'unrealistic' artificial limitation for the sake of reality?
This, is where it exactly connects with the autoretract issue.
Not at all since I ran the risk of having my flaps become damaged from over-speeding/stress and I'd retract them before it got to that point. Sometimes I wasn't paying attention and allowed them to get jammed a few times and it cost me big time. Lesson learned and probably had my flaps jam less than a half a dozen times in AW and never had them jam in WB.
So what's keeping you from doing the same thing in here? Retract your flaps and ease out on the angle, if you think an autoretract might happen that might stall you.
Besides, what was the speed at the 'point' that the flaps were damaged in AW? You have any proof that AW was not using an arbitrarily set speed point?
-
I dont wish the limit raised. I wish to see a result of breeching the limit that is consistant with any other mechanical/load bearing structure. A 6000RPM rated engine could concevelably fail at 6001RPM for a 1 second duration, but its not very likely. In the same token you dont constantly run it at 6200RMP or rev it to 7000RMP and expect to get much lifespan out of it. I wish there was a model to that effect on flaps. I know whether I am 1deg or 45deg from transitioning ROD to ROC, and it would be nice to make a judment call based on that knowlege. Hence the 'control' factor.
Doesn't makes sense Murdr.
If your intentions are purely in having full control authority of the flaps, the alternative HT mentioned should still be enough for you. If the set limit is crossed, the flaps will break off.
However, you insist on having the flaps still function normally over its set limit, because you think it is a technical feasibility. And at the same time you're saying I don't want the limits raised.
The limit is set at 250mph IAS. What will happen if the plane crosses over to 251mph? Will the flaps be damaged? In all fairness, who the hell knows?
But you don't want its effects disappearing due to autoretract when the plane is,let's say, at 251mph. You want the flaps to hold.
How is this not wishing the limit raised?
You, are wishing the limit to be raised, to assist your needs in combat, instead of accepting the fact that the flaps will cease to function over its recommended limits AH2. Why is it modelled that way? It's all been discussed above - to prevent AH from turning into a flapfest.
Oh, and btw, the very example you used in the above paragraph I quoted from you - that's exactly what's happening in IL2/FB. People overrev planes with direct manual prop-pitch control in Il2/FB.
Will the engine fry because it went over its sanctioned boost pressures and RPMs? Probably not. But will the pilots ever do something like that? No.
But alas, in Il2/FB, in the virtual skies, people overrev their engines everyday. All the Bf109s and Fw190s are flying something like 15~30km/h faster than its listed speeds. Because, the engine will not fry the moment you put it over its normal sanctioned settings. People exploit this control to their advantage in combat.
Compare to what HT did to the 190s and 109s in AH. It uses a generic constant-speed prop system to control RPM. In AH, its impossible to overrev the engine above its normal combat setting. The 109s and 190s in AH, fly at their real listed speeds in AH, thanks to the fact that HT did not give us realistic controls.
-
A general question about flaps.
Which is that "force" that prevents the deploiment of flaps (even minimum angle) at speeds where you can move the ailerons/elevators/rudder freely up to their maximum angle up and down? Were flaps and flap attachments so weak compared to ailerons, elevators or rudder?
-
In fact, there are only loose SUGGESTIONS for the MANEUVERING FLAPS. It says speeds over 250MPH MAY damage the flaps if they are deployed. It says use of the MANEUVERING FLAPS in excess will result in the danger of being slow. Doesn't say it will damage the plane. The SUGGESTIONS are TACTICAL, and not STRUCTURAL.
So let's imagine this scenario:
A real flesh and blood P-38 pilotwith only one life given to him by God, finds himself combating a nimble Zero. The Zero enters a Split-S to evade fire. The pilot checks his airspeed, which indicates about 200mph IAS.
Following the Zero's every move is clearly not the only option given to him, but the pilot does not wish to give up the chase. However, he remembers what the flight manual has suggested to him: speeds over 250MPH MAY damage the flaps
Will this pilot:
a) seeing that the speed is already near 200mph IAS, grudgingly decides not to keep the flaps down and chase the Zero.. because, the speed-gaining maneuver of Split-S might accelerate the plane over the speeds suggested in the manual.. and it might damage the flaps... He will gives up the chase, and prepare for another attack pass by repositioning himself.
or
b) think to himself, "Well.. the flap probably won't really get damaged just because I go over 250mph.. I think I'll play a little gamble with my life and risk unnecessary damage.. and follow the Zero.. even if that's not my only option in this engagement".. and go merrily chase the Zero with his flaps popped out.
Oh I'm sure some real life pilots might choose b)... but I'm kinda thinking that the guys who choose b), are usually the guys who get killed. What do you think?
AH II ain't IL2, and it ain't Warbirds either. Just because things happen there doesn't mean they'll happen here.
Do you really believe in what you wrote above? Because, that's probably the funniest comment I've ever heard from you. Are AH P-38 pilots Saints or something?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The Dive Flap limits are clearly set and were posted in reply to a point brought up about the Corsairs Dive Brakes.
I did not know the P38 was the first airplane on the moon.
Crumpp
In regards to the first remark, show me. No test pilot or combat pilot, to my knowledge, ever reported the dive flaps failing, and I've never seen a structural limit for the dive flaps. Levier topped 550MPH with them out. He also hit .75 Mach. The placard is for the plane itself, and not the flaps.
-
Originally posted by MANDO
A general question about flaps.
Which is that "force" that prevents the deploiment of flaps (even minimum angle) at speeds where you can move the ailerons/elevators/rudder freely up to their maximum angle up and down? Were flaps and flap attachments so weak compared to ailerons, elevators or rudder?
The elevators, rudders, and ailerons were operated by controls with a significant mechanical advantage, and later the ailerons had hydraulic boosted assist as well. The dive flaps were electricly operated, and would deploy at VERY high speeds.
The maneuvering flaps were not operated by controls with a great deal of mechanical advantage. Besides, no pilot in his right mind would actually try to deply the flaps at speeds over 250MPH, they'd only slow you down.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
So let's imagine this scenario:
A real flesh and blood P-38 pilotwith only one life given to him by God, finds himself combating a nimble Zero. The Zero enters a Split-S to evade fire. The pilot checks his airspeed, which indicates about 200mph IAS.
Following the Zero's every move is clearly not the only option given to him, but the pilot does not wish to give up the chase. However, he remembers what the flight manual has suggested to him: speeds over 250MPH MAY damage the flaps
Will this pilot:
a) seeing that the speed is already near 200mph IAS, grudgingly decides not to keep the flaps down and chase the Zero.. because, the speed-gaining maneuver of Split-S might accelerate the plane over the speeds suggested in the manual.. and it might damage the flaps... He will gives up the chase, and prepare for another attack pass by repositioning himself.
or
b) think to himself, "Well.. the flap probably won't really get damaged just because I go over 250mph.. I think I'll play a little gamble with my life and risk unnecessary damage.. and follow the Zero.. even if that's not my only option in this engagement".. and go merrily chase the Zero with his flaps popped out.
Oh I'm sure some real life pilots might choose b)... but I'm kinda thinking that the guys who choose b), are usually the guys who get killed. What do you think?
Do you really believe in what you wrote above? Because, that's probably the funniest comment I've ever heard from you. Are AH P-38 pilots Saints or something?
The answer to your first scenario depends entirely on how good the pilot is, how good he thinks he is, and how agressive he is. A lot (at least more than a few) of pilots DID pursue in those situations, some succeeded, some died, and some barely escaped with their lives. But all had the choice, that is REALITY, whether YOU like it or not. He might even pull the split S, and when his speed dropped from the G's he pulled, drop MORE flaps to keep his speed down and his turn tight, knowing he can pull them up and dive away at full throttle, should the need arise.
As far as my statement, no, P-38 pilots are not saints. But good P-38 pilots are not fools. They are not going to drop the flaps at high speeds because there's no advantage to it. The idiots in P-38's you'll kill anyway, especially when they do stupid things with their flaps.
Your problem is that you already hate the fact that the P-38 (and the P-47 for that matter) already have Fowler flaps that deploy at higher speeds, and make them more stable at lower speeds with more flap, and Axis planes, which were designed with a different philisophy, do not. Those flaps make those planes more stable. Axis planes were designed to be lighter and more nimble, but along with the advantage of being more nimble comes the disadvantage of being less stable. So, in reality, when the Allied pilot had a choice about his flaps, even if the wrong choice would get him killed, in the game you want his choice taken away, because you don't have the same choice in your plane of choice. But you want to call THAT reality. You've been bawling and whining about U.S. planes being more stable and Axis planes being less stable since the first time I saw you post. This perpetual whine about keeping autoretract is simply an extension thereof.
One more thing. The REAL complaint here is not the flaps autoretracting from one or two notches at 250MPH. The REAL complaint is the 3rd, 4th, and 5th notch retracting at lower speeds in high G maneuvers as speed momentarily rises 5MPH for an instant. The mere fact that you are arguing about one notch at 250MPH plus shows you don't know what you are actually arguing about.
-
I think Wotan pretty much revealed the true reason why most are against the removal of the auto-flaps. You guys want your hands held and don't want to have to worry about managing your flaps and gladly will let the system basically do it for you instead of letting you face the risks.
Nonsense, you AW flap flappers are the only whining about the auto retract flaps.
At least OIO was honest enough to admit his real intentions:
If the retract point was between 50 and 80mph higher for all flap retract points the problem with the 38 retract=spin would be solved at any altitude imo.
[/b]
That is exactly what these whines are about, just as Grunherz said. This is what folks are against. Most folks don't fly AH with a finger on the flap button. The real good P38 guys going back to the early days of AH never whined about flaps. Its mostly you AW types. You guys must of flown a lot RR over there or something.
What difference does it make if the flaps jam, break or retract? The same limit that you whine about in regards to auto retract would be the same limit you whine about when your flaps break or jam.
You AW 38 fan tards only want a higher limit. HT replied to the whines yet you all can't take a hint.
As for you 'hard core' and 'hand held' BS a button click here and there don't make you skilled.
Those that post well 'John American Hero P38 pilot said we used flaps up to 60000kmh' won't get any consideration in determining how things are modeled nor should they. I can post 109 pilots claiming they could easily out turn spitfires, we all no that isn't true.
There can be no randomization because its to objective and opens the door for greater amounts of whining across the spectrum of aircraft fan bois.
You can manage your own speed and you can hit a button just like every one else. Talk about wanting your hand held...
Quit your whining and adapt.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The dive flaps were electricly operated, and would deploy at VERY high speeds.
Fw190 flaps were also etectrically operated with tree small push buttons (up, down 1, down 2) near the throttle handle.
Is that speed is limiting flap advantages instead of flap integrity?
-
Originally posted by MANDO
Fw190 flaps were also etectrically operated with tree small push buttons (up, down 1, down 2) near the throttle handle.
Is that speed is limiting flap advantages instead of flap integrity?
No. In AH, flap deployment is locked out if you are above the maximum deployment speed. In real life some planes did have such a mechanical safty feature, some did not. Its the strucural integrity flap that is the limiting factor, higher speed transfers more stress on the hinge points and linkages of the flap.
The dive flaps hilts mentioned are a different animal, and are not on the trailing edge of the wing.
Were flaps and flap attachments so weak compared to ailerons, elevators or rudder?
Not that they are so weak, but that they are subjected to more force and they are designed to stay in fixed positions. Being fixed in an angle that resists the airflow puts 100% the stress on the attachments. Not so with the other control surfaces where stresses distrubute throughout the entire control system, and where they are not subjected directly to the air pressure that lifts your plane in the air.
-
No. In AH, flap deployment is locked out if you are above the maximum deployment speed.
I RL the FW-190A could deploy take off flaps up to 500Kph according to the Flugzeug-Handbuch.
In fact the in the USAAF trials of EB-104 (FW-190A5/U8), The US Pilots classified them as "manuver flaps" and listed the stall speed under G's. According to their manufacturing tolerences, the flaps were plenty strong enough.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Why is it bad analogy? It's technically possible.
It's not relevant to this topic? It is THE example that is relevant to this very topic Ack.
If HT puts in a system in place to prevent the release of bombs past a certain angle, that means implementing an unrealistic device which limits the accessibility, which wasn't there in real life. The only thing that prevented real life Lanc crew from doing such a thing was the burden of real life itself.
Lancs in the MA, are doing something that's technically possible, but situationally impossible. So which should be considered more important? The freedom to control their planes upto the point that freedom distorts reality? Or to put in an 'unrealistic' artificial limitation for the sake of reality?
Actually, while technically possible it was pretty much over ruled by physics. The Lancaster was a level bomber that had a bomb bay. If the Lancaster was at too steep if a dive angle and tried to release the bombs from the bomb bay, most likely it would end up with the bomb in its own lap. So a mechanical system to prevent it was not needed since physics already did the job.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Besides, what was the speed at the 'point' that the flaps were damaged in AW? You have any proof that AW was not using an arbitrarily set speed point?
They weren't and for the proof, I asked one of the developers of the game, Quarters recently on another message board. AW pretty much used a system like Murdr had outlined. I don't know what system HiTech used in WB, he never answered when I asked in another thread.
ack-ack
-
Ack-Ack,
A Lanc would have to be in an insanely steep dive for the bombs to hit the front of the bomb bay. It's bomb bay was wide and long, not shorth and deep like a B-17's. I'd say that anything under a 60°, maybe under a 75°, dive would work, assuming the structure held together.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Doesn't makes sense Murdr.
However, you insist on having the flaps still function normally over its set limit, because you think it is a technical feasibility. And at the same time you're saying I don't want the limits raised.
The limit is set at 250mph IAS. What will happen if the plane crosses over to 251mph? Will the flaps be damaged? In all fairness, who the hell knows?
But you don't want its effects disappearing due to autoretract when the plane is,let's say, at 251mph. You want the flaps to hold.
How is this not wishing the limit raised?
No that is not what I said. I said Id prefer them to possiblly break with an increasing chance to point of certanty when the limit is breached. Where does that possiblility begin? At the stated limit. The limit doesnt change. I wouldnt want the stated limits to change. Only the model of what happens when that limit is reached.
As I stated before I am often countering the actions of the auto-retract inside of a second by re-deploying flaps. That in and of itself is not a problem. However, the fact that I knew I was near auto-retract and had to lessen elevator input to avoid a possible auto-retract spin. That is a problem. Why? Because without the easing of elevator input, and the associated loss of turn rate and drag I likely would not have hit that limit in the first place. The flaps should never have been retracted. I know that, auto-retract does not.
You may say good, it is working perfectly by keeping me in the envelope. I say no. It is an artifical disadvantage the plane did not have that prevents me from even considering attempting to run the ragged edge, and in principal imposes an artifically low limit.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Nonsense, you AW flap flappers are the only whining about the auto retract flaps.
At least OIO was honest enough to admit his real intentions:
/quote]
Ahh...another reply from the clueless. This discussion has nothing to do with 'flap flapping' as you so call it. All that we ask is that the auto-retract feature be replaced with a system that models the effect of over speeding/stress. You said yourself that you want to keep the auto-retracting flaps because you don't want your flaps damaged like they become in IL2 because you forget to raise them. That sounds like to me you want to your hand held and coddled. So I ask again, is this why you're so afraid of getting rid of the auto-retracting flaps?
ack-ack
-
No, he doesn't want a different system modelled because if there is a 10% chance that the flaps will function normally when the speed is 90% over the rated "limit", then for all intents and purpose, the rated limit has been adjusted upwards 90%.
Basically all anyone who is against this is saying is it keeps the planes flying in a realistic manner.
-
I for one think we should do away with auto-retractic flaps. It just doesn't make sense (well, it does, but not for the sake of this discussion).
In reality, there are limits. Sometimes, said limits can be pushed with a degree of success. Other times, you will not succeed. What I'm talking about is breaking the "factory-set limits" of your aircraft. If you're daring enough to go over these limits, you might come out without a scratch. The fact remains: You'll probably come out of your daring escapades with some damage.
Automatic Retracting Flaps should be taken out, period. If you're daring (or just plain stupid) enough to kill your flaps, then you should be able to do just that. There's no real reason for ARF other than the "hand holding" excuse.
-
It is done to keep the planes flying in a realistic manner, that is all.
If there were no limits to flap speed (or if there were limits, but they didn't actually mean anything), people would use the flaps in an unrealistic manner to gain advantage. That should be fairly obvious if you've played any multiplayer game for any significant length of time (say, more than about 15 minutes).
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Ahh...another reply from the clueless. This discussion has nothing to do with 'flap flapping' as you so call it. All that we ask is that the auto-retract feature be replaced with a system that models the effect of over speeding/stress. You said yourself that you want to keep the auto-retracting flaps because you don't want your flaps damaged like they become in IL2 because you forget to raise them. That sounds like to me you want to your hand held and coddled. So I ask again, is this why you're so afraid of getting rid of the auto-retracting flaps?
ack-ack
I aint afraid of anything. I don't make the decision for how things are modeled. HT does and he told what he thought about making a change based on your whining.
Its only you AW types who whine about this issue.
As I said at least OIO came clean and admitted what he wanted.
If the retract point was between 50 and 80mph higher for all flap retract points the problem with the 38 retract=spin would be solved at any altitude imo.
He doesn't care about auto retract or jams or breaks. He just wants the limit set higher to suit his type of flying. Thats all you or the other P-38 Fan bois want. That quote above is exactly what this thread is about, after all it was OIO who started this thread to begin with.
The limits are there just as they were in RL. Any speculation or guesses you make about random failures or pilot anecdotes don't mean anything.
Learn to adapt and manage your speed better.
Its only a button click...
You said yourself that you want to keep the auto-retracting flaps because you don't want your flaps damaged like they become in IL2
I don't care what HT keeps. This issue is completely irrelevant in regards to how or what I fly. I never used flaps in AH. IL2 is different game, my point IL2 was to counter Karnaks point about the IL2 flapfest.
As soon as your flaps start breakng or jamming you and the P-38 fan bois will be back whining about that. So it makes no difference what happens to your flaps if they are extended beyond the limits, its the limit (as OIO abmits) that you all are whining about.
-
urchin im all for ANY sort of change to the current system. I propose raising the flap retraction point because its the damn easiest thing for HTC to do (at least i think.. raising an already set retract level has to be easier than programming a whole new damage model thingy).
"One more thing. The REAL complaint here is not the flaps autoretracting from one or two notches at 250MPH. The REAL complaint is the 3rd, 4th, and 5th notch retracting at lower speeds in high G maneuvers as speed momentarily rises 5MPH for an instant. The mere fact that you are arguing about one notch at 250MPH plus shows you don't know what you are actually arguing about."
EXACTLY virgil.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
As soon as your flaps start breakng or jamming you and the P-38 fan bois will be back whining about that. So it makes no difference what happens to your flaps if they are extended beyond the limits, its the limit (as OIO abmits) that you all are whining about.
Yep, as expected thats the kind of BS blanket statment I expected to see. That was the only reason I initially piped in on this thread. You can find threads from last year where hilts, akak, and I disagreed with OIO's point of view on this, but easier yet it is here in this thread.
-
I'm not sure what the criteria are for the more "full" flap settings (as far as AH speeds for retraction vs RL "limits"). In fact, I don't even much care if the P-38 got changed as far as that goes... I don't fly it and odds are it wouldn't effect me even if I still flew.
I can see why the P-38 guys would like the "full" flaps retracting speed to be a little bit higher than it is, because it is fairly simple to see that your flaps retracting because your speed touched 150 mph (for instance) in a slow speed "turn fight" for an instant would mess you up.
However, I also see the other point, which is if HTC decided to change it so they didn't retract till 160 you'd have people saying "This is BS HT, my flaps autoretract if my speed touches 160 for an INSTANT and then I lose the fight!", or if they were changed so they took damage it'd be "this is BS HT, my flaps got damaged because my speed went over 160 for a SECOND, in REAL LIFE flaps didn't break just because you went 5 mph over the "RECOMMENDED LIMIT" (NOTE RECOMMENDED), it needs to be changed!"
Edited for broken english lol
-
Murdr: So your saying snapping the flaps off at the bottom of the loop does not take the control out of the pilots hands?
Or do you just wish the limit's raised so you can use flaps at higher speeds at the bottom of the loop?
HiTech
Your answer:
Add a 1-2 second delay between auto-retract/deploy and its even more common.
That in effect raises the limit, which is exactly what the original poster wants.
This is OIO's thread and his requests are the subject of discussion. At least he's honest enough to admit what he wants with out hiding behind some other pointless drivel.
Whether it be some grace period of 1 or 2 seconds or 50 – 80 mph its still all about limits.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Its a common experience for me to have the flap.wav playing double because I was at the bottom when the auto-retract took over, and Ive already started the next loop and re-deployed them. Add a 1-2 second delay between auto-retract/deploy and its even more common.
Read It! Nowhere did I ask for a grace period.
here, ill make it easier. the pronoun "its" is defined in the first sentence "a common experience for me".
Im describing my experience with the contrary ARF, not asking for something.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
However, I also see the other point, which is if HTC decided to change it so they didn't retract till 160 you'd have people saying "This is BS HT, my flaps autoretract if my speed touches 160 for an INSTANT and then I lose the fight!", or if they were changed so they took damage it'd be "this is BS HT, my flaps got damaged because my speed went over 160 for a SECOND, in REAL LIFE flaps didn't break just because you went 5 mph over the "RECOMMENDED LIMIT" (NOTE RECOMMENDED), it needs to be changed!"
Edited for broken english lol
Hence the parameter "Make it (auto-retract) optional like auto take-off." :) Turn ARF back on if ya dont like it when the break.
-
No one is asking for an uber plane. Frankly I don't even fly the P-38 at all. What I do actually is work the flight controls systems on the F-15 and know first hand that "factory limits" are bent constantly. Sometimes they are broken at a cost and sometimes they are broken with no adverse affects. That is realism.
It is all about realism and not gaming the game. To many folks here are trying to make this into an issue about wanting to press the limits to purely get a kill. It's not that at all. This isn't a one way street. That is ofcourse how some of you view this subject though.
Yes unfortunately you will have those that will constantly press the limits to get a kill if it were implemented. They will still pay dearly if it is abused though in the end. Flying recklessly on the edge like that on a constant basis will cost them their "virtual lives" if their greed gets the best of them. You would still be entering a danger zone if the limits are passed.
Those who use it as a last ditch effort here and there are the ones we are talking about. These are the same people who are concious about every aspect of flying and fighting during every engagement. These are the people who will weigh the risks of attempting a maneuver that is risky and if it doesn't work then they will pay the price.
The arenas we fly in are very dynamic. Things change at the blink of an eye. People will find out quickly that if such a system is implemented (which I doubt it will) and their greed gets the best of them them, it will come at a cost if used wrecklessly. Next time they up they will be thinking about pressing the limit and will weigh the risks. Some will choose to fly wrecklessly and some will choose to do as they do already and weigh the risks with everything they do in a fight. People say head on attacks are realistic and they definately are if you read the history books. Head on attacks are also very risky and in a split second can cost them their lives. Realism means having the option of making a choice. With realism also comes randomness. There are very few things in this world that have guaranteed outcomes and pressing the limits of combat aircraft is not a guarantee that the outcome will be catostrophic. What our aircrews do is called operational risk management. They weigh the cost of everything they do.
-
The answer to your first scenario depends entirely on how good the pilot is, how good he thinks he is, and how agressive he is.
Then that simplifies the problem enough. You guys that cannot accept autoretraction are;
1) agressive
2) thinks himself good enough
3) but not actually good enough to contain speed within the boundaries of the border set all the time
A lot (at least more than a few) of pilots DID pursue in those situations, some succeeded, some died, and some barely escaped with their lives.
Which, is exactly the same thing in AH, where sometimes one in a P-38, would be able to keep the speed under the limited levels and follow the target aggressively and succeed in shooting it down.. or in some cases, would fail by exceeding limitations.
But all had the choice, that is REALITY, whether YOU like it or not.
And whether YOU refuse to see it or not, that is technical reality, not the wholesome reality itself. You see one side of reality which suits your immediate combat purpose. We see the other, which determines how real the game will stay in terms of overall situation.
He might even pull the split S, and when his speed dropped from the G's he pulled, drop MORE flaps to keep his speed down and his turn tight, knowing he can pull them up and dive away at full throttle, should the need arise.
And one might also choose to do a suicidal JABO role by diving alone into a field with its defenses fully up, and create a spectacular crater after his run.
Or, one might also do a 30 degrees angle divebombing in a four-engined Lancaster.
Or, one might disregard all of the warnings and break over the sanctioned engine boost limit and risk reprimandation by manually overreving his engine just for the sake of single combat engagement.
Those are choices that was possible in real life too.
As far as my statement, no, P-38 pilots are not saints. But good P-38 pilots are not fools. They are not going to drop the flaps at high speeds because there's no advantage to it.
But they will want to deploy the flaps and let them work as dive brakes, over the recommended speeds?
The idiots in P-38's you'll kill anyway, especially when they do stupid things with their flaps.
Who cares about the idiots?
Your problem is that you already hate the fact that the P-38 (and the P-47 for that matter) already have Fowler flaps that deploy at higher speeds, and make them more stable at lower speeds with more flap, and Axis planes, which were designed with a different philisophy, do not.
If that was true, how come you don't see me asking for the same thing done to the Bf109s or Fw190s? Crumpp does mention the Fw190s being able to use their flaps upto a higher point but it remains a neutral interest to me because no real discussion has been made about it yet.
Wouldn't you think if this was about your "nobody likes us Allied fanboys" thing, I'd be the first one to post about "waaaahhh I want my 109 flaps to not autoretract too.." whines?
How low a point can one try to hit? Rabbit punches and low blows. Now you're trying biting and kicking too.
Those flaps make those planes more stable. Axis planes were designed to be lighter and more nimble, but along with the advantage of being more nimble comes the disadvantage of being less stable.
Axis planes(and Soviet, Japanese, even RAF and Reggia Aeronautica and most of the other USAAF and USN planes for that matter..) use exactly the same philosophy towards 'flaps' as your P-38.
The only difference is the P-38 saw some practical combat use of a certain intermediate position NAMED 'combat position', which in NORMAL FUNCTIONING FLAPS INTENDED FOR NORMAl FLAP EFFECT AS SECONDARY FLIGHT CONTROL in the fact that it was deployed in a fowler-type manner in that intermediate position.
You think P-38 flaps are something special which makes the P-38 something that it was not. That's what this entire discussion is about.
People don't use flaps over X speeds, when the manufacturers say, "don't use them. It might damage it(thus, increasing your chance of entering Kingdom Come)". However, you think the P-38 flaps are something special with a special purpose in its life that differentiates itself with every other plane in WW2, and thus, you should be allowed to make an unrealistic choice that leads to unrealistic situational results which would rarely happen in real life - because, the having the choice itself would be stil possible in real life(no matter how unlikely it is).
Wake up.
So, in reality, when the Allied pilot had a choice about his flaps, even if the wrong choice would get him killed, in the game you want his choice taken away, because you don't have the same choice in your plane of choice.
So what's the problem here? Is this some philosophical thing about the freedom of choice?
Or are you arguing that your plane should be allowed to have that choice, BECAUSE YOU WANT TO ACTUALLY CHOOSE TO DO SO IN THE MA, FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR OWN COMBAT PURPOSE
In other words, you don't care how unrealistic it is or not. You just want to do that, make an unrealistic choice, if you think it can aid you in combat.
That, is a good definition of "GAMING THE GAME" if I ever saw one.
But you want to call THAT reality. You've been bawling and whining about U.S. planes being more stable and Axis planes being less stable since the first time I saw you post.
You're advocating an action for an unrealistic choice which would rarely be seen in real life, which results will change the game into a mandatory flap deployment in every maneuvering instance, and call that 'reality' in regards to the technical possibility, and yet total disregard to its outcome.
You call that 'reality'.
I advocate a limitation not only one plane has, but that is applied to every plane in the game despite the fact that it limits a pilots personal choice, because, with that limitation in place we have a game where pilots carefully choose their speeds in regards to flap deployment, and must intensely fight the possibility that they might go overspeed.
I call that 'reality'.
This perpetual whine about keeping autoretract is simply an extension thereof.
We're the ones whining now?
One more thing. The REAL complaint here is not the flaps autoretracting from one or two notches at 250MPH. The REAL complaint is the 3rd, 4th, and 5th notch retracting at lower speeds in high G maneuvers as speed momentarily rises 5MPH for an instant. The mere fact that you are arguing about one notch at 250MPH plus shows you don't know what you are actually arguing about.
I know that you're arguing for a 5 miles per hour worth of slack, when no other plane pilot of all of the other countries, even your own USAAF, are allowed to do so, and complaining about it.
HT was right all along.
Twist it, warp it, reverse it, flip it all you want. The bottom line is still;
" I just want the limits raised. For my plane "
-
Random failures above critical limits should be implemented upon all airframes not just one. It just so happens that the P-38 folks are here fighting for something that is realistic and should be implemented. HTC is the one that will weigh the costs of making a random fail generator system for a system like this. If they choose not to it's no different than them choosing not to implement complexed engine management systems or random failures of other systems.
Realism versus playablity versus time to structure a failure generator. Seems alot like operational risk management if you asked me. Weighing the pros and cons to a particular subject to determine if the cost is worth the risks involved.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
As soon as your flaps start breakng or jamming you and the P-38 fan bois will be back whining about that. So it makes no difference what happens to your flaps if they are extended beyond the limits, its the limit (as OIO abmits) that you all are whining about.
You're wrong as you are about most things. I'm pretty sure that I've been playing these sort of games longer than you have and in games where flap damage was modeled from over speeding and honestly that was probably the only aspects in those two games that I never heard a whine about. Sure it sucked the couple of times I did jam my flaps but I chalked it up to a lesson learned.
No, it basically sounds to me that you and your kind just enjoy being coddled. Please be sure to come back when you actually have something productive to say.
ack-ack
-
Step out of the tech side Cobra.
Realism is an amalgam of many different things, not just the technical side. Something which influences realism much more in terms of overall game play is how real life choices were limited by the burden of real life itself, despite the fact that the choices always remained.
Because this is a game, where we do not risk our personal lives, or have to worry about the performance of our planes in the next sortie, we do wild and crazy stuff real WW2 pilots would frown upon.
A keen reader might remember that in the older dicsussion about this issue, I've reached a certain compromise point with Murdr in the form of random failures with increased chance of damage the higher the speed goes over the limit. Critical risk high enough to want the pilot to not want to engage his flaps over the limit.
However, even that was an arbitrary assumption at best.
How is HTC gonna model a random chance? Upon which factors? Are they going to have to measure the strength of the flap system, what type of metal it uses, and then run it through a super-sophisticated air flow simulation program, just to more-or-less accurately determine the chance of damage?
Or, are they gonna have to use a random 'dice roll' type of determiners?
Look at how 'randomness' effects the people in the MA - the 88mm puffy flak.
It's something like one flak hit in 20 sorties type of thing, rare thing to happen in the first place, and still people can't stand the fact that random chance has hit them.
So, are we really gonna ask for a random chance based on an arbitrary dice roll?
People will be angry because player X's flap withstood upto 50mph higher than its recommended speed, and yet their own plane gets damaged when only 3~5mph has exceeded, just because of this random chance.
So if HTC offsets the random chance so it is a highly unlikely thing to happen when the limits are only mildly crossed, then in effect it loses its randomness and becomes an 'raised limit' line in practicality.
Randomness is a highly risky thing to throw into the game when the game is so high in the spirit of competition between players.
That's something you can't figure out by technics and numbers alone.
-
Kweassa I'm not going to argue with you. Seems you do it enough with everyone else on here. The majority who wish not to see a random fail generator applied are the same ones who keep saying it's gamey and "unrealistic". It is not gamey and it isn't unrealistic.
I could make a list of gamey crap that goes on in the arenas and gamey easy mode functions that have been implemented by HTC. Easy mode bombing calibrations, limited damage model on carriers(lack of damage modeling to direct hits on the carrier deck which would keep planes from launching), lack of damage modeling to airfield runways(see above for explanation), auto flap retraction, auto angle, auto speed, and auto combat trim. Dive bombing buffs, vehicles hidding inside buildings which have no vehicle entries, dogfighting buffs, buffs landing on aircraft carriers, suicide pork runners, suicide 100 ft or lower buff formations, and porkers flying off map to hopefully avoid interception. These are gamey.
No offense to HTC it's what they've chose to model for with obvious reasons for some items. I'll deal with these items just as I will deal with it if they dont' model a random fail generator. People already game the game but I don't the same people complaining here about implementing a random failure complaining about them and their gamey ways. It seems some pick and choose which fight they want to fight depending on whether or not it suits them in some way or another. Just like the group who claim there is a conspiracy with the Axis modeling. Some are more informed than others but the ones who aren't informed still complain because how it currently is doesn't suit their agenda.
I've worked combat aircraft long enough to know from experience that limits are broken and broken often. The outcomes of these broken limits vary from one incident to the next. Hence why I have said random failures above a particular limit is realistic. Whether HTC chooses to take the time to try and make such a system is up to them.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Then that simplifies the problem enough. You guys that cannot accept autoretraction are;
1) agressive
2) thinks himself good enough
3) but not actually good enough to contain speed within the boundaries of the border set all the time
The reason I cannot accept autoretraction is that it simply did not exist on the P-38. PERIOD. The plane did not have it. Further, autoretraction ASSUMES facts not in evidence. Not to mention it completely ignore the fact that there was by necessity a safety margin in the limits the flight manual did set. They didn't state that 250MPH was the limit because at 251MPH the flaps would structurally fail.
Which, is exactly the same thing in AH, where sometimes one in a P-38, would be able to keep the speed under the limited levels and follow the target aggressively and succeed in shooting it down.. or in some cases, would fail by exceeding limitations.
Removing autoretract and replacing it with a properly designed damage model would not change that.
And whether YOU refuse to see it or not, that is technical reality, not the wholesome reality itself. You see one side of reality which suits your immediate combat purpose. We see the other, which determines how real the game will stay in terms of overall situation.
The ONLY reality is this: The P-38 did not EVER have an autoretract function. The fact that you want it artificially limited by forcing an autoretract function has nothing at all with your desire for reality, and eveything to do with your desire to handicap a plane you don't want to face performing at its full potential.
And one might also choose to do a suicidal JABO role by diving alone into a field with its defenses fully up, and create a spectacular crater after his run.
Or, one might also do a 30 degrees angle divebombing in a four-engined Lancaster.
Or, one might disregard all of the warnings and break over the sanctioned engine boost limit and risk reprimandation by manually overreving his engine just for the sake of single combat engagement.
Those are choices that was possible in real life too.
And those choices have nothing to do with the object of discussion, they are merely straws you grasp at because you have no valid argument.
But they will want to deploy the flaps and let them work as dive brakes, over the recommended speeds?
No one has advocating deploying flaps to use them as speed brakes. If you are already slow enough to use the flaps, if you deploy them far enough, the associated drag WILL keep you that slow, and besides, even if it allowed your speed to creep up a few MPH, the flaps wouldn't be damaged, nor would aerodynamics force them to retract.
Who cares about the idiots?
I'll leave that one alone.
If that was true, how come you don't see me asking for the same thing done to the Bf109s or Fw190s? Crumpp does mention the Fw190s being able to use their flaps upto a higher point but it remains a neutral interest to me because no real discussion has been made about it yet.
You've been squawling about instability issues in the 109 and other Axis rides for as long as I can remember.
The difference between you and me is I don't want artificial limits. If the 109 is too unstable, I want it fixed. If the flap limit on the 190 is too low, I want that fixed too. And the P-38 did not have autoretract, so I want that fixed.
Wouldn't you think if this was about your "nobody likes us Allied fanboys" thing, I'd be the first one to post about "waaaahhh I want my 109 flaps to not autoretract too.." whines?
How low a point can one try to hit? Rabbit punches and low blows. Now you're trying biting and kicking too.
Look, I'm not the one who feels compelled by some sort of obsession to infest every thread about other planes. You, Crump, and Wotan must live in total fear of the P-38 having autoretract removed. The mere mention of the P-38 in any thread draws you clowns like crap draws flies. I never said nobody likes those of us who prefer the P-38, and I really don't give a damn if they do or if they don't. As far as it goes, you should be the absolute last to complain about rabbit punches and low blows, never mind kicking and biting. You can't come up with any factual basis for your argument, the best you can do is grasp at straws. And you've humped the ankles of every P-38 fan here until they bleed. YOU simply MUST insert yourself into EVERY thread about the P-38. If I were as obsessed about planes I don't fly (like the 109 and 190) as you are about the P-38, I'd seriously consider seeking professional help. The only time I bother with posting in those threads is when you feel compelled to stoop to hurling immature insults at P-38 fans in a sad attempt to get your whine, err point, across about your instability issues with the Axis planes. Even when the P-38 is NOT the subject, you have to hurl the same insults about it.
Axis planes(and Soviet, Japanese, even RAF and Reggia Aeronautica and most of the other USAAF and USN planes for that matter..) use exactly the same philosophy towards 'flaps' as your P-38.
No, in fact, they are not. The Axis planes were designed to be lighter and more maneuverable, and they sacrificed stability and protection to get it. U.S. planes were designed, with one or two notable excptions, to be heavier, more rugged, more stable and more powerful. They intentionally sacrificed a certain measure of maneuverability to achive those goals. SOME designs, like the P-38, had certain equipment specifically designed to make them a little more maneuverable at lower speeds. With regards to flaps, few of the Axis designs I've seen use Folwer type flaps for the specific purposes they were used on the P-38 for.
The only difference is the P-38 saw some practical combat use of a certain intermediate position NAMED 'combat position', which in NORMAL FUNCTIONING FLAPS INTENDED FOR NORMAl FLAP EFFECT AS SECONDARY FLIGHT CONTROL in the fact that it was deployed in a fowler-type manner in that intermediate position.
The fact remains, the other flap settings WERE used by SOME pilots very successfully, and there never was an autoretract feature.
You think P-38 flaps are something special which makes the P-38 something that it was not. That's what this entire discussion is about.
What this entire discussion is about is your morbid fear of a P-38 that is not artificially handicapped with an automatic function the real plane did not have.
People don't use flaps over X speeds, when the manufacturers say, "don't use them. It might damage it(thus, increasing your chance of entering Kingdom Come)". However, you think the P-38 flaps are something special with a special purpose in its life that differentiates itself with every other plane in WW2, and thus, you should be allowed to make an unrealistic choice that leads to unrealistic situational results which would rarely happen in real life - because, the having the choice itself would be stil possible in real life(no matter how unlikely it is).
People exceed design parameters all of the time, especially in combat. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Your argument that people don't use flaps above rated speeds has two problems.
1. People do use flaps at speeds higher than they are rated. That's a FACT. Just because you don't LIKE that fact does not keep it from being a FACT.
2. Flaps don't automaticly fail the instant the rated speed is exceeded.
The flaps on the P-38 WERE used in the manner some of us use them, by pilots in combat. They judged the risks, and they made their decision to take their chances. Yes Kweassa, they DID use full flaps in turn fights at low speeds, even when they were told it was very risky.
The choice is only unrealistic in YOUR OPINION. The FACT remains they WERE used in that manner and they DID NOT have autoretract. Just because you don't LIKE that fact, does not mean it is not a fact. Just because you THINK it is unrealistic for pilots in AH to have the same choices and options the men who flew the real planes had, does not MAKE it unrealistic.
To be continued in the next post
-
previous post continued here
Wake up.
Yes, indeed you should.
So what's the problem here? Is this some philosophical thing about the freedom of choice?
The PROBLEM here is YOU, and your fantasy belief that the P-38 should have an artificial function it did not have in real life in order to handicap it to suit YOUR fantasy idea of reality. THAT is the PROBLEM.
Or are you arguing that your plane should be allowed to have that choice, BECAUSE YOU WANT TO ACTUALLY CHOOSE TO DO SO IN THE MA, FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR OWN COMBAT PURPOSE
It's not MY plane. But it should be as close to the real plane as is possible, whether YOU like it or not. I'm not saying the P-38 should be given ANYTHING it did not have. Or that it should be given any feature not given to planes who had the same feature in real life. See, that's your problem here. We're asking for the P-38 to be true to life. We're not asking for some sort of add on advantage that the real plane didn't have. We're only asking for the flaps to function EXACTLY as they do on the real plane. NO autoretract.
In other words, you don't care how unrealistic it is or not. You just want to do that, make an unrealistic choice, if you think it can aid you in combat.
That, is a good definition of "GAMING THE GAME" if I ever saw one.
BULL! It is NOT an unrealistic choice. It is a choice made possible by the design of the plane, and an option exercised by real pilots who flew the real plane.
Gaming the Game is artificially handicapping a plane with a B.S. function it did not have in real life, in order to make it artificially unstable. YOU are the one gaimng the game, because you live in morbid fear if facing it without the artificial handicap. Sucks to be you. Life must be hard when you're paranoid.
You're advocating an action for an unrealistic choice which would rarely be seen in real life, which results will change the game into a mandatory flap deployment in every maneuvering instance, and call that 'reality' in regards to the technical possibility, and yet total disregard to its outcome.
BULL. Again. I'm merely stating several facts. The fact is, the P-38 did not have autoretract flaps. The fact is, some pilots not only used the maneuvering setting, but also full flaps. It was not necessarily an every day occurrence, but that does not make it unrealistic.
And your argument that having it available changes the game into a manditory flaps deployment illustrates two things VERY CLEARLY.
1. Not every engagement results in speeds low enough to even consider flaps. Not every maneuver requires them, and some situations make the yse of flaps both unnecessary and undesireable. Evidently, you have some bizarre opinions about air to air combat.
2. The fact that you THINK every maneuver will result in "manditory" flap deployment clearly illustrates that you want to make sure that you can at least some what mitigate the advantage a P-38 has because of inherent design features, if not negate that advantage entirely, because it is "unfair" to planes that do not have the same design features.
You call that 'reality'.
I call having the plane function as it was designed to, meaning that the equipment works exactly like it did on the real plane, reality.
I advocate a limitation not only one plane has, but that is applied to every plane in the game despite the fact that it limits a pilots personal choice, because, with that limitation in place we have a game where pilots carefully choose their speeds in regards to flap deployment, and must intensely fight the possibility that they might go overspeed.
I call that 'reality'.
See, what you call reality, forcing a limit on one plane because other planes have that limit, I call arcadish crap. How about we limit the dive speed on ALL planes to the same as that on the P-38? Why not? After all, you want to force an artificial limit on the P-38, to level the field, because some of the other planes have design characteristics that prevent them from using flaps the way a P-38 does. So, since the P-38 has a lower dive speed limit than most, let's lower all the dive speeds of all the other planes. That's what you are advocating. An artificial limit on the P-38, to handicap it to the level of other planes in certain areas of the flight envelop.
We're the ones whining now?
Yes, you certainly are. Not just now, but in every P-38 thread I can remember since I came to the AH BBS.
I know that you're arguing for a 5 miles per hour worth of slack, when no other plane pilot of all of the other countries, even your own USAAF, are allowed to do so, and complaining about it.
I'm arguing for autoretract to be removed, because it wasn't on the real plane. I want it replaced with a realistic damage model. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
The fact is, the P-38 did not have autoretract flaps.
Nor had any other plane represented currently in AH except the NIKI which had an auto-combat flap system if i remember right.
The FW190 btw has deployment limits modeled in AH that are below the specs given in the aircraft manual.
The problem here is HTC has to draw the line somewhere?
Where should this be? Manufacturer or handbook safety "recommendations" are the only way to go IMHO, cause otherwise we will have sheer chaos of "what should be" and "what could be".
The autoretract features is a nice compromise i think, it lets the pilots use the flaps up to their max modeled limits without damaging them.
Most other flightsims are not that generous, there the flaps get stuck once you exceed the modeled limits.
Do you really ask for this? Or would you than come back here in anger because you regulary overspeed your flaps and they are frozen in position.
Or is the real problem here that AH's P38 enters a spin when autoretract kicks in?
A solution maybe to soften up the line were autoretract kicks in, maybe something like "more than 5 seconds and/or 15mph IAS over max deployment speed".
That way flaps would not autoretract if you exceed the limits only for a brief moment.
@crumpp:
I RL the FW-190A could deploy take off flaps up to 500Kph according to the Flugzeug-Handbuch.
Crumpp in the FW190A8 manual i have there is no speed limit given for the take off position. Only the landing position of the flaps is limited to 300km/h max.
Do you have a different release of the FW190s manual than me?
-
The reason I cannot accept autoretraction is that it simply did not exist on the P-38. PERIOD. The plane did not have it. Further, autoretraction ASSUMES facts not in evidence. Not to mention it completely ignore the fact that there was by necessity a safety margin in the limits the flight manual did set. They didn't state that 250MPH was the limit because at 251MPH the flaps would structurally fail.
The ONLY reality is this: The P-38 did not EVER have an autoretract function. The fact that you want it artificially limited by forcing an autoretract function has nothing at all with your desire for reality, and eveything to do with your desire to handicap a plane you don't want to face performing at its full potential.
Listen.
Countless other examples of why a certain gameplay device is set in the model, despite the fact that they did not exist in real life, have been brought up in this long discussion. You're not listening to any of those arguments which this entire discussion is based on.
In some areas you can't model a real plane into a game plane on a 1:1 ratio. It is actually not preferrable to do that in the first place. Do you think the stick pull forces we have in the game are accurate? Or do you think the all the planes had the generic RPM management system? Did any of the real life planes have semi-automatic combat trim?
Ofcourse, I understand that since none of those are of any interest to you, you really haven't thought of that stuff. You're interest lies in the P-38, and that some features of it are limited as compared to the real life thing.
However, the reason why HT persists in maintaining an autoretract system is on a higher level of consideration than just the single technical reality of your favorite plane. If the autoretraction was removed from the game, and the flaps wouldn't be damaged if it was about 10~15mph over its limit, it would actually benefit other planes even moreso than the P-38.
The P-38 is already very lethal with its flaps. However, other planes, for example the German planes, are not. While the removal of autoretraction would benefit your plane in a very limited mistake instance where pilots like Ack or Tac complains about, it would benefit the 109 and 190s on a larger scale, since now they have a more lenient and effective speed-brake system to be used in close-quarters combat. The biggest weakness of the Ki-84 in the game(which is also a plane I enjoy flying) is the speed ranges 50 miles higher than the point where the first notch of its fowlers can be deployed. This weaknes would effectively be removed as a whole.
If your accusations that the people who support HT's decisions are biased was true, then we'd be actually rooting for the autoretraction to be removed, instead of opposing it. It'd benefit 'our plane' more than yours.
However, this is all over that.
The PROBLEM here is YOU, and your fantasy belief that the P-38 should have an artificial function it did not have in real life in order to handicap it to suit YOUR fantasy idea of reality. THAT is the PROBLEM.
BULL. Again. I'm merely stating several facts. The fact is, the P-38 did not have autoretract flaps. The fact is, some pilots not only used the maneuvering setting, but also full flaps. It was not necessarily an every day occurrence, but that does not make it unrealistic.
Again, the 'fact' you state resides in terms of relativeness, not in terms of absoluteness. Some pilots may risk such intense flap use, but that is not what happened in most of the cases. If you refuse to consider this situational difference then the 'reality', or rather, the 'simulated reality' of the game is warped and distorted into something which it was not.
In real life, if a real hot-shot pilot like that existed, he would have been able to do so because his confidence in skill was so great enough that he'd be thinking he can manage to step out of the set boundaries and still manage to survive. However, people like these were few and rare. Most of the normal pilots of normal fighting skills would stick to the initial principles laid out by their commanding officers and plane manufacturers, because their lives were on the line.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If something can be done in a game, then people will do it.
The end result is certain range of action which would be considered very 'rare' in real life, becomes the 'norm' in a game because none of us risk as much as the real pilots would. Everybody in the game will know that they don't really have to be too careful with the flaps. They will know that they don't have to be very careful at the boundary line where the flap effects would disappear, so they will do it with ease everyday.
I am barely average in a P-38, and I know I can't pull maneuvers Ack or Tac might do in the game. A Split-S tight enough to follow Spitfires is something I cannot do, or rather, will not choose to do, because I consider it much too dangerous considering my limited understanding of the P-38. However, if the autoretraction is removed, and I can just pull the tighest turn whenever I want by leaving the flaps down to act as stabilizers/air brakes, and just pull the stick hard(since the P-38 will refuse to stall in most cases during flight).. then by all means I'm gonna start doing it. If I can do that, so can everyone else. Careful management of flaps was something for the real veterans, but its gonna change into something everybody can do with relative ease.
Is this the picture of reality you have? Every two-bit newbie pulling flaps down and just hovering in the air, just because its possible? As opposed to the reality which only the most confident of pilots would ever attempt something like that, since it required so much careful attention?
I may add that, the 'picture' I just described, is what is actually happening in IL2/FB. The close quarters fights and stall fights are so damned easy in every plane. There is no real contest in overshoot maneuvering and such, because, everybody will just mandatorily pull flaps down when a closequarter fight happens. I see super low speed planes hovering and flopping around everyday, every newbie doing stuff which where in AH only the really experienced veterans can ever do, because in IL2/FB, once the flaps are down it doesn't have any limitations unless the speed grows really really high. (IIRC, the point where the flaps are damaged in most planes are something like 400~500km/h IAS).
In Aces High, I can't do something like that in a 109, because the flaps will retract when it crosses over 190mph IAS or so, and the extra stability it offers disappears. I have to really carefully manange my plane so either I remain under the limit speed, or immediately correct my plane's attitude once the flap autoretracts, so I don't stall out, and can start deploy it again.
However, in IL2/FB, my 109 flies like a P-38 because I can use the speed brake and stabilizer effect in the 109 everytime I do a certain move. I can out turn Spitfires and La-5FNs, both, which in Aces High is very difficult thing to do. The reality there is so warped that different strengths of each aircraft like turn rates and low-speed stability is virtually meaningless.
What am I afraid of? I'm afraid of that happening to AH.
-
You've been squawling about instability issues in the 109 and other Axis rides for as long as I can remember.
The difference between you and me is I don't want artificial limits. If the 109 is too unstable, I want it fixed. If the flap limit on the 190 is too low, I want that fixed too. And the P-38 did not have autoretract, so I want that fixed.
Read the 109 stability issues thread I've posted, and take a good look at my attitude towards the issue, as compared to yours. I did all the tests I could, measured each plane's turn rate data and even asked HT to check if the method I use can be considered objective and correct. I did a controlled test with objective comparison and posted the data so everybody could see the point I had.
Ofcourse, the issue I had with the 109s is relatively easier to display in numerical values, than the autoretract issue, which is a much more difficult situational balance issue. That I'd admit.
Any other insults and accusations I could understand, since the debate is so heated between both sides. However, the 109 stability issues thread was something which I put a lot of work into to prove that my point was valid, and needed some consideration among the developers. Besides, even after the point was demonstrated, HT/Pyro did not respond. So, I dropped it there instead of go on and on.
Don't compare it with any of the P-38 autoretract whines. That really is insulting.
See, what you call reality, forcing a limit on one plane because other planes have that limit, I call arcadish crap. How about we limit the dive speed on ALL planes to the same as that on the P-38? Why not? After all, you want to force an artificial limit on the P-38, to level the field, because some of the other planes have design characteristics that prevent them from using flaps the way a P-38 does. So, since the P-38 has a lower dive speed limit than most, let's lower all the dive speeds of all the other planes. That's what you are advocating. An artificial limit on the P-38, to handicap it to the level of other planes in certain areas of the flight envelop.
Arcadish crap it may be to you. But that 'arcadish crap' is the key difference between the FM between IL2/FB and Aces High. In Aces High, that 'crap' is what makes it so worthwhile to learn the micromanagement and intense concentration required to manage a plane to its full strength. A flap wil refuse to stay deployed if you cross over its limit. So you have to learn to fly without flaps as major combat devices most of the time(which coincides with real life WW2 combat), and in those rare instances where a real slow fight occurs, you will learn to very carefully manage your flaps so your plane doesn't overspeed(which also coincides with real life WW2 combat).
Why can't it be the same with autoretract removed? Because, if autoretract is removed, people won't pay attention to their speeds upto the point which they feel 'safe' (ie. 5~10 mph over the previous limit) and just leave the flaps hanging down, instead of be wary of what speed you are in.
I call having the plane function as it was designed to, meaning that the equipment works exactly like it did on the real plane, reality.
The plane wasn't designed to withstand speeds over 250mph with its maneuvering flaps applied. If it was designed that way, the manual wouldn't mentioned that you shouldn't do that because it might damage it.
The 'reality' you talk about has no connections whatsoever with the design concept. You're talking about the 'reality of free choice, in which pilots can willingly risk an unnecessary damage, if they feel upto it'. Despite the fact that allowing such reality in choice, may distort or warp the game into something that does not reflect reality at all.
-
Aww, poor little Kweassa, he's insulted because I made a comment about his 109 thread. Well, ain't that just sad.
I actually read the thread with interest, right up until the point you made the smartprettythang comment about P-38 pilots.
The cheap shot regarding the real P-38 pilots earlier in this thread was more than a little over the top as well.
Perhaps, in the future, if you don't want to be insulted, you'll take care not to be such a salamander and insult others. Remember that the next time you start to type your cute little remarks. If you want some respect, remember it's a two way street.
Autoretract is a whine, but stability issues aren't? Pure B.S. Kweassa, but then I'd expect nothing less from you.
Oh, and the autoretract forces micromanagement alright. No where in real life does any pilot have to manage his speed down to 1MPH, Hell the speed instrumentation can't even be calibrated that close. But in AH, if you exceed a preset speed by 1MPH, BANG! autoretract. What a crock. You think real pilots flew ANYTHING like that? The idea that they stared at their airspeed indicator, micromanaging their speed down to a sinlge MPH is as ludicrous as autoretract itself. One thing is for certain, if they watched their airspeed that close, they died, because they were watching their instruments instead of their enemy. Air to air combat is a lot more VFR, not IFR.
Your argument that removing autoretract will suddenly bring about a herd of gomers flying the P-38 and dropping their flaps like Tom Cruise in Top Gun is pure facetious garbage (actually it's more like pure feces, but then so is the rest of your argument). Your position that you are "protecting us from becoming just like IL2" is just as bogus. Removing autoretract and replacing it with a properly designed damage model will not turn AH into IL2.
Gamey gomers won't fly the P-38 to use it for air to air combat anyway. It isn't an easy mode plane. It is a big target. It is too slow. It is too hard to learn how to really fly.
Oh, and if your position that removing autretract will help other planes more than the P-38 is true, then bring it on. I'm not scared of it. Done right, it will only make the game better.
Real pilots didn't take off again 15 seconds after they were shot down, especially not if they were dead. Real pilots didn't dive into a furball just for the sake of having a fun fight. I can go on and on about what real pilots didn't do. I can change that to average real pilots and go on ad infinitum.
Oh, and Naudet, I flew for years with a damage model that wrecked my flaps if I exceeded the structural limits, it worked just fine for me. And no, everybody was not flying around doing Tom Cruise impressions as Kweassa suggests. Far from it.
-
Oh, and Naudet, I flew for years with a damage model that wrecked my flaps if I exceeded the structural limits, it worked just fine for me.
Was that damage model an absolute one, where the flaps were wrecked once you got beyond a certain speed or a relative one, where the chance to damage the flaps increased with time and speed you exceeded the limits?
-
Oh, and the autoretract forces micromanagement alright. No where in real life does any pilot have to manage his speed down to 1MPH, Hell the speed instrumentation can't even be calibrated that close. But in AH, if you exceed a preset speed by 1MPH, BANG! autoretract. What a crock. You think real pilots flew ANYTHING like that?
Nope.
I don't think people watched speeds to the 1mph line in real life.
In real life, pilots wouldn't have had to micromanage anything like that since they would not attempt to leave the flaps down under suspicious conditions with high likelihood of overspeeding in the first place. Since they don't do gamey shi* like that in the first place, they never are in a situation where they have to micromanage stuff. They avoid bad situations like people avoid drinking and driving.
However, instead of admitting that following a superior maneuvering plane down the rail is a stupid thing to do and try going the long way around, you guys are so horny about showing off what superior pilots you are by outmaneuvering better turning planes, that you insist in sticking your noses into the rear-end of the enemy plane and stay there like glued on, upto a very fishy point which might be inherently dangerous - upto the speeds which real pilots would usually refrain from stressing their flight controls.
And when that fails, you come to the boards screaming and whining that your plane is broken.
If every combat-flap equipped plane pilot attempted such stuff, or even most pilots for that matter, there won't be any need of E concept or teamwork maneuvering in the first place. Every P-38 pilot in the war must have known following a superior maneuvering plane move-by-move is mostly a very dangerous deal which should be avoided in the first place.
And yet, you fall deaf ears on numerous notations of the general tendencies of air combat in WW2 and insisit on doing the rare stuff which is hardly ever confirmed as being the norm - in the name of "REALISM".
The idea that they stared at their airspeed indicator, micromanaging their speed down to a sinlge MPH is as ludicrous as autoretract itself. One thing is for certain, if they watched their airspeed that close, they died, because they were watching their instruments instead of their enemy. Air to air combat is a lot more VFR, not IFR.
They wouldn't need to watch their airspeed so close, because they'd never put their plane into a situation where such close attention was needed, in the first place.
However, being the game this is, you don't risk any of your precious limbs in the virtual skies, so naturally, you mostly insist on doing dumb stuff that gets you killed and then whine about why it's not working; "If only the flaps stayed downn I'd not .. blahblahblah .. stall.. blahblah.. spin.. blahblah.. me killed.. blahblahblah.. so can we get the limits raised for my favorite plane?"
Kindly for us, HT for the most part let us do stupid stuff the way we please if we really wanted to do so. But he figured that there needs to be at least an implementation of a serious drawback in general efficiency of "stupid stuff" so at least it serves enough warning to the gamers that doing "stupid stuff" has a higher chance of getting you killed than doing "not stupid stuff".
So, when we, who are playing this comfy virtual game, want to do "stupid stuff" and unnecessarily risk our butts in a what might be potentially dangerous situation, we have some motivation to think twice about it, so our actions would at least loosely match that of real pilots who for very different reasons, would also think twice about doing "stupid stuff".
And where does that motivation comes from?
It comes from the fact that if we do the "stupid stuff" of relying too heavily on a secondary flight control and hope a plate of metal sticking out of a wing is gonna hold back the speed of a 10 thousand pound airplane descending from the sky, its gonna backfire sooner or later.
In other words, it gives us some consequences which serves as a good reason to avoid doing "stupid stuff".
So if doing "stupid stuff" gets you killed, I suggest you stop doing "stupid stuff", like holding flaps down when the plane is speeding. That way you won't get the death stall spiral, and you won't get killed.
Or, you can do the "stupid stuff" again and again and come to the boards each time you fail, until you get more scorn and ridicule from all of the other players who usually don't do "stupid stuff".
Your choice, m8.
-
I'm pretty sure that I've been playing these sort of games longer than you have and in games where flap damage was modeled from over speeding and honestly that was probably the only aspects in those two games that I never heard a whine about.
You would be wrong.. I have been in AH since the doors opened in WB before that AW early on (it sucked even when thats all there was) plus plenty of others. Some where the flaps ripped off, some where they jammed and created lots of drag. Auto retract, jam or break it won't matter to me one bit.
You and the other 4 or 5 tards in this thread are the only ones who ever whined about auto retract flaps. If the limit is 250 mph or what ever it is what difference does make what happens if you go beyond that limit?
Some planes in rl had auto retract F4Fs for example...
This thread is all about limits as the original poster admits...
It tards like yourself who wear out your flap buttons. As I said I never used flaps in AH, not even when landing. How would I be coddled? You are under some delusion in thinking that a button click here or there makes you 'skilled'.
Learn how to manage your speed better and you wont worry about flaps.
Random failures above critical limits should be implemented upon all airframes not just one.
BS the only things that should be modeled (in terms of aircraft) are those things that can be clearly defined and documented. Making up some random parameters is no more 'realistic' then auto retract now.
The limits HT uses are documented. They have been in affect for 4 + years. They are not new and if anyone has been here for a reasonable amount of time understand those limits and work with in them.
It's the whiners who want their favorite plane fixed to suit their particular flying style.
Kweassa, Karnak and Grunherz (and HT) all called it correctly early on in this thread:
HT was right all along.
Twist it, warp it, reverse it, flip it all you want. The bottom line is still;
"I just want the limits raised. For my plane"
Look out Kweassa the Cap'n don't respect you...
-
Originally posted by Naudet
Was that damage model an absolute one, where the flaps were wrecked once you got beyond a certain speed or a relative one, where the chance to damage the flaps increased with time and speed you exceeded the limits?
According to what I was told by the developers, it was progressive, which is as it should be. Most often, they jammed in the position they were in when the damage occurred. That is also as it should be, because they would do exactly that in real life. the forces applied to the flaps would eventually exceed the structural limits of the tracks, and it would be the tracks that would fail. The tracks would become bent or twisted, and the flaps would no longer move on them.
In the game, that would be a severe penalty, because at last test, the P-38J would hit 347MPH at 5K on WEP, in clean condition. That makes it slower than a lot of the planes already, and a lot slower than some. Add the associated drag, and the speed would be further reduced. The P-38 could not escape hardly any planes at that point, and would be forced to fight. It would already be very slow, and in need of the flaps. After the first turn or so, it would need to deploy the flaps further than they were due to speed loss. However, it got into that position because the flaps were jammed, so no more flap is available. So now, not only can it not get fast, it can't turn when slow either, effectively neutering it, so that anyone with decent skills can kill it in nearly any plane.
Now you know why the P-38 pilots are wondering what the fuss is about. A progressive damage model would make the above scenario very possible. The advantage to the P-38 is that it would no longer become INSTANTLY unstable because it gained 1 MPH and the flaps suddenly retracted when no pilot in his right mind would retract his flaps. He wouldn't stare at the airspeed indicator and sweat over 1 MPH in speed either. He'd keep a GENERAL idea of what his speed was and take care of the fight.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Look out Kweassa the Cap'n don't respect you... [/B]
Wow, I'm deeply concerned. Between you, him, and Crump, I'm all heart broke. :rolleyes:
-
Calm down guys (sheesh to have ME tell you this.. lol ) .
I like the idea of putting a retract timer someone mentioned above.
4 seconds after the deployment point is passed the flaps autoretract. And this would apply to ALL airplanes not just the 38.
Kweassa: " The plane wasn't designed to withstand speeds over 250mph with its maneuvering flaps applied."
Wrong. Lockheed engineers added locks to prevent the deployment of flaps in the later versions of the 38 (G,J or L I forget which) because a number of 38s in the front were coming home with flap damage. Pilots had used them in combat at speeds above 300mph .. especially at high altitudes where a notch of flaps was of tremendous help in manouvering.
After that the engineers decided on a 'safe' speed to deploy the flaps and that was that.
key words for you: came home, used them, engineers.
-
First there are no plans to change flaps, and topics in this thread have not changed anything in my thinking.
Every request I have seen comes down to one request. We wish the current limit on flaps to be raised. They are disgusied in multiple ways, but they are always the same request. We wish to excede the current max speed limit in some way.
We do not model to some great philosphy. We look at how to model certain systems with some basic guide lines.
1. I realy dislike randomizers of any type.
My view is that randomizers that effect outcomes should only be used as a last resort. I can sight multiple instance where randomizers are always complained about . We all know about the ack randomizer, but look at the last complaint about the fire randomizer time. Where some one is complaining that a zero flew for a long time. Well it just hit the extream side of the randomizer limit.
So I only ever use randomizers as a last resort when it effects the outcome of fights.
2. Each system is looked at as to how it effects enjoyment vs how it effects realism.
Take the the other example of landing gear. It also has a hard limit just like the flap does, we make big noises before it is damaged. But gear is realy not used much in combat, hence it is more of just a reminder to raise your gear to keep them from being damaged. But at the same time we do not allow you to lowerer them past there set speed. All choice are made on nuiscance realism VS game play.
Other choices made in the landing gear modling. In reality the gear would most likly just be bent back. And stuck in that position until a machanic had a ferm talking with the pilot. What we choose to do , is remove them. The resone is that if you forget to raise them on take off. You can still continue the fight and make a belly landing with out gear. And no harm was done to your enjoyment that flight. But the only consideration about landing gear as far as realism goes is that people should not exceed there limits.
3. Flaps.
Are different than landing gear because they can be used as a primary control in a fight. (on a side note, when dog fighting real ap51, my auto retract flaps was the pilot up front, I departed the aircraft because he raised them at the limit speed).
In almost all our modeling we choose to stick the the flight manual. Cases could be made about real planes being modified slightly to increase there power, or that we should put a randomizer in to extend there wep time. But all these things have one thing in common, you are trying to model the completly unknown. And more importantly there is no real consiquence do damaging the plane. For instance it realy isn't an all or nothing with flaps. Over speeding them could just bend some linkages, The would still function. But repair, and a scolding would happen after landing. There realy is no way for us to model those consquences, no do we realy desire to try. It isn't what the game is about.
A lot of people fly lots of different planes. My belife is that people enjoy trying differnt fights in different planes. But most are realy not interested in memorizing the speed settings of all flap positions. Now we could put marks on all the ASI, but that would take more work, make download larger, and rquire more texture memory.
So we are realy down to a few choices.
1. Autoretract, and not let them deploy.
2. Play a sound and snap them off.
To me the auto retract is the most acceptible.
Because it gives us a simple cutoff line (flight manual speed limits) and it isn't a nuisance realism because we do not damage them when you just cross a line. And finaly It dosn't reqire a randomizer.
-
For those of you looking for more realism in P38, start asking for a 15 mins limit for MIL power. Far more important than flaps, isnt it?
About random failures, they would certainly add realism. But we pay to PLAY and we play for sort periods of time, we dont play to waste 15 mins of our very valuable free time just to end up with a random engine failure (and doesnt matter the low frequency of faillures). On the other hand, that would be a "nice" feature to have in some scenaries. And yes, puffy ack acts actually like random critical failures.
-
Ki-84 has Fowler flaps also, I don't want to have to get my speed under 150 to get them to deploy so could we get the deployment limits bumped up another 80 mph or so....
It's just such a disadavantage the way it is and I'm sure some Japanese pilot somewhere deployed them faster than that at sometime :)
-
My first sentence in the thread btw was: "OIO, not that this dead horse hasnt been beaten enough, but... " :)
-
Originally posted by hitech
Because it gives us a simple cutoff line (flight manual speed limits) and it isn't a nuisance realism because we do not damage them when you just cross a line.
... its not nuisance realism to make a plane spin during a low speed high-g fight and practically guarantee it getting shot down because they 'just crossed a line' when the real plane didnt suffer from that (spins due to autoretraction)? at all?.
Originally posted by hitech
"2. Each system is looked at as to how it effects enjoyment vs how it effects realism."
it seems to me the system affects only 1 plane and not others. A success by all standards unless you happen to be flying that 1 plane. Thats me. And my enjoyment is seriously affected.
The current system models something that the real 38 didnt do and sadly it models it at the very speeds the 38 will reach for mere moments when it 'crosses the line' and spins thanks to it.
HTC changed the flight model a ways back because data was shown to them that it was incorrect. Data shows that the 38s flaps did not retract on their own or by wind. The autoretract is a gameplay feature as far as the 38 is concerned.
If its gameplay feature then please give me the option of not using it. Or adjust the current gameplay feature so that it does not cripple my plane in the very situations where its relying on flaps.
You said every request comes down to modifying the current set limits. You say the other option is ripping them off.
Ripping them off would penalize all airplanes equally.. but if that one is put in place you wouldnt have just me whining to high heaven, youd have everyone here ;)
One system penalizes 1 plane, the other system penalizes all planes. imo it seems less painful (and easier to do) to adjust the current system so that the 1 affected plane is not penalized and have those adjustments affect ALL planes...they werent affected before by it and they wont be affected by it after the adjustment.
-
Originally posted by OIO
I still want my P38 autoretract speed increased.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
However, I also see the other point, which is if HTC decided to change it so they didn't retract till 160 you'd have people saying "This is BS HT, my flaps autoretract if my speed touches 160 for an INSTANT and then I lose the fight!", or if they were changed so they took damage it'd be "this is BS HT, my flaps got damaged because my speed went over 160 for a SECOND, in REAL LIFE flaps didn't break just because you went 5 mph over the "RECOMMENDED LIMIT" (NOTE RECOMMENDED), it needs to be changed!"
Edited for broken english lol
We're not asking for the auto-retract speed to increase, we're asking it be taken out and replaced by a system that would model the damage from over-speeding. So in your example, instead of the flaps auto-retracting at a higher speed, the pilot instead would face the possibility that his flaps would jam.
ack-ack
-
OIO,
Why do you think it only affects one plane? That is a silly, nonsensical thought.
As to the "real" plane, well, a "real" pilot wouldn't try to follow a Zero though a Split S using his flaps.
Learn to fly within the limits of your chosen aircraft. Do you see me in here whining every time I overspeed and rip the flight surfaces off of my Mossie? That only affects two or so aircraft and is absolutely fatal. So what? I should have watched my speed better.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
But they will want to deploy the flaps and let them work as dive brakes, over the recommended speeds?
By that statement, you just show that have completely have no clue and no absolutely nothing about the P-38. Only those with very little experience in flying the Lightning in AH would be dumb enough to use their flaps as dive brakes.
We have also never asked for the flaps to be able to be deployed at a higher speed than rated, yet you keep harping on that for some reason. Probably because you have no real argument in the first place and just pull stuff out of thin air to try and prove your point. And when that fails you scream "gaming the game" or other such nonsense.
What are you afraid of Kweassa or are you just used to having your hand held and coddled?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Naudet
Was that damage model an absolute one, where the flaps were wrecked once you got beyond a certain speed or a relative one, where the chance to damage the flaps increased with time and speed you exceeded the limits?
In AW, the chance of damage to the flaps would increase with time and speed if you've exceeded the speed limits. Never had the problem in WB so I don't know how it was modeled in there and HT never answered when I asked.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
A keen reader might remember that in the older dicsussion about this issue, I've reached a certain compromise point with Murdr in the form of random failures with increased chance of damage the higher the speed goes over the limit. Critical risk high enough to want the pilot to not want to engage his flaps over the limit.
Yea, tac. That comprimise point was outlined in my first post to this thread. Originally posted by Murdr
As the whole request alternative to auto-retract (and be resonable about it) stands:
Make it optional like auto take-off.
Flap deployment is still locked out over spec speed.
Add a damage probability model. Example:
Percent over...........Speed for..........Damage
deployment............150mph. ............Probability
speed...................deplo yment
1%..............................151.5............... .25%
2%..............................153.................. .5%
3%..............................154.5................ 1%
4%..............................156................... 2%
5%..............................157.5................ 3%
6%..............................159................... 5%
8%..............................162.................. 10%
10%............................165.................. 33%
15%............................172.5............... 75%
Damage type is consistent with flap type. (eg. break off, jamb, forced up and inoperable)
While that addressed multiple player concerns from the opposing view, its a moot point when HT has a different opinion.
Nobody was going to stand for special rules for just one plane. So I thought Id bring you up to speed. Hehe, the discussion went in the same circle anyways.
-
We have also never asked for the flaps to be able to be deployed at a higher speed than rated
To clairfy, you never asked for them to move from the up to a lower position at a different speed, but you have asked to have them remain deployed (i.e "be able to be deployed") at higher speeds.
I.E. Like I have said since the very first time you requested this. You wish to use your flaps at higher speeds than the manual states.
HiTech
-
Well that makes a little more sense now HT. Being that we meant we didnt advocate people actually changing flaps to a higher angle when they where already over the limit.
(same word being able to define "the act of" and "the state of")
-
Crumpp in the FW190A8 manual i have there is no speed limit given for the take off position. Only the landing position of the flaps is limited to 300km/h max.
Hi Naudet!
Most likely you have the same version Flugzeug-handbuch as I do. The very next line after it instructs to raise the take off flaps is too trim for level flight at 500kph. I think that is a conservative limit for the FW-190. It puts it in the same catagory as combat flaps.
If the 109's handcranked flaps can be deployed to 20 degrees at that speed, the electric ones of the FW-190's most certainly could reach 13 degrees.
All the best!
Crumpp
-
"Why do you think it only affects one plane? That is a silly, nonsensical thought."
The P-38 is the only one affected because its the only plane in the set that has counter-rotating props. Go fly a 190d9 or a 109g10 or any energy fighter at 150mph or less and try to turn hard with it. In a few turns with speed bleeding off you will experience serious control problems as your single engine plane tends to try to spin out of control.
The 38 does not have that. Yet its at those very speeds and going up/down horizon in such fights that ONE flap retract will make the entire plane spin out of control because it went 1mph above the retract limit for a split second.
The 38 is a stallfighter when in a turning fight... and the flaps retract&spin literally remove the counter-rotating prop benefit... all because of a gameplay feature.
"As to the "real" plane, well, a "real" pilot wouldn't try to follow a Zero though a Split S using his flaps."
Interesting how you keep believing im posting this because i want to turn with zeros. I already told you any 38 pilot turning with spits or zeros is an idiot.
Real 38s did keep their flaps deployed even in the L models which had the locks to prevent flaps from deploying past X speeds.
But apparently it is HTC's policy to keep a gameplay feature that models behaviour not found in the real P-38.
-
Originally posted by hitech
I.E. Like I have said since the very first time you requested this. You wish to use your flaps at higher speeds than the manual states.
As for my part, I dont see a benifit in using flaps at higher speeds than the manual states. The extra lift can produce more Gs than the pilot can take, so the drag and the lift are undesirable to me. I wish to be able to make a judgment call on whether I will or will not stay inside the rated speed, and not have the specter of absoulte certianty of a departure if my judgment is off by 1mph.
By the way I would have no problem accepting that even if I was only wrong by 1mph that something bad still might possibly happen. The absolute certianty of it sets the bar well below the specs instead of at the specs. Thats just my opinion.
-
OIO,
I can 100% guarantee you that the P-51s, P-47s and Ki-84 also suffer from flaps auto-retracting. No matter how much you wish to make this a persecuted P-38 thing, that is not the fact of the matter. I'd bet other fighters such as the F4U, N1K2-J and F6F-5 also suffer from it.
As to the other bits about reality, you can just keep on claiming that most P-38 pilots routinely used their manuvering flaps in combat and oversped them regularly. It won't make it true.
-
I know the Ki-84 does, or at least it did when I was flying it. However, I very rarely sped up to the point where the flaps would autoretract, and I can't remember ever actually stalling and spinning because of it. But I've never done that in the P-38 either. I imagine the Niki does, because you really get on the flaps in that plane, unlike a Spit, where flaps are very rarely needed.
With all that said.. I really actually DO like (I think Virgils) way, where instead of the flap auto-retracting, it just jams. Won't go up, won't go down.
That would keep the pilot from getting screwed in *that* fight, but basically screw him in any fight after that. That seems like a good compromise to me.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
That would keep the pilot from getting screwed in *that* fight, but basically screw him in any fight after that. That seems like a good compromise to me.
I don't like it for that very reason. In reality if you did that repeatedly you would get a royal chewing out, taken off the flight roster or killed. In AH, you get a kill.
No thanks. I vote for no reward for abusive behavior towards your aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I don't like it for that very reason. In reality if you did that repeatedly you would get a royal chewing out, taken off the flight roster or killed. In AH, you get a kill.
No thanks. I vote for no reward for abusive behavior towards your aircraft.
Have you ever tried to get from point A to point B in the MA with your flap jamed down? I have, there is nothing rewarding about it. If you change the setting of the good flap, its hard to even keep in the air. Your ability to gain and exchange E is so hampered that you're pretty much a sitting duck.
-
Originally posted by hitech
To clairfy, you never asked for them to move from the up to a lower position at a different speed, but you have asked to have them remain deployed (i.e "be able to be deployed") at higher speeds.
I.E. Like I have said since the very first time you requested this. You wish to use your flaps at higher speeds than the manual states.
HiTech
There have been some good arguments on both sides here. I lean towards HiTech's reasoning of using the manufacturer's limits.
However, I think there is something that could be done to help pilots avoid the demon of auto-retract.
Play the sound associated with over-stressing the airframe at speeds five mph below where the the flaps would retract and have it increase in volume until they do retract. This would provide a sensory clue to the pilot, helping to avoid the sudden destablization of loss of lift. Do it for all aircraft.
I think this would be beneficial for everyone and not offer any advantage that some might think to be unfair.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Have you ever tried to get from point A to point B in the MA with your flap jamed down? I have, there is nothing rewarding about it. If you change the setting of the good flap, its hard to even keep in the air. Your ability to gain and exchange E is so hampered that you're pretty much a sitting duck.
I don't think that matters to the majority of the AH players. They got their kill, then auger and get a new '38.
Where's the penalty?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
As to the "real" plane, well, a "real" pilot wouldn't try to follow a Zero though a Split S using his flaps.
Tell that to Richard Bong. Or any number of Japanese pilots he killed.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I don't think that matters to the majority of the AH players. They got their kill, then auger and get a new '38.
Where's the penalty?
Wrong again. To those who fly that aggressively and that close to the edge, in the P-38, the object of the exercise is to win and get home alive. I've limped back over three sectors on one engine, and even fought on the way back with a plane shot to pieces. If I hit the ground its because the plane was shot out from under me. The same applies to Murdr, AKAK, Guppy35/Dan/Slack/Rust, Silat, Widewing, and the others who want the autoretract removed. The rest couldn't give a damn, they don't know and don't care. The majority doesn't know or care about it.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I don't think that matters to the majority of the AH players. They got their kill, then auger and get a new '38.
Where's the penalty?
I'll look forward to seeing your supporting evidence that "the majority of AH players" behave as you say. Granted there are pleanty of boneheads around, but the same 3 pork auger dweebs you see lawn dart 100 times a night, dont count as 100 players.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The same applies to Murdr, AKAK, Guppy35/Dan/Slack/Rust, Silat, Widewing, and the others who want the autoretract removed.
Technically I dont want it removed, just a checkbox option like stall limiter, auto-takeoff and combat trim.;)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I don't think that matters to the majority of the AH players. They got their kill, then auger and get a new '38.
Where's the penalty?
LOL I think you are confused. That's just me in my 38G dying over and over and over. Not the majority of players. Just me leaving 38G parts all over the maps :)
I do try to auger with style however
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Technically I dont want it removed, just a checkbox option like stall limiter, auto-takeoff and combat trim.;)
Agreed. I would like to see it apply to all planes, and I'd like to see it as a selectable option for those who are either new and lack experience, or like to fly without managing that particular system. I look at it like turning off easy mode, to allow you to push the plane to the edge, and manage your systems and your risks manually.
-
The same applies to Murdr, AKAK, Guppy35/Dan/Slack/Rust, Silat, Widewing,
i feel like im sitting at the kids table at thanksgiving dinner...:lol
-
Originally posted by killnu
i feel like im sitting at the kids table at thanksgiving dinner...:lol
Yeah but you always get the food first so it's better anyway :)
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Wrong again. To those who fly that aggressively and that close to the edge, in the P-38, the object of the exercise is to win and get home alive. I've limped back over three sectors on one engine, and even fought on the way back with a plane shot to pieces. If I hit the ground its because the plane was shot out from under me. The same applies to Murdr, AKAK, Guppy35/Dan/Slack/Rust, Silat, Widewing, and the others who want the autoretract removed. The rest couldn't give a damn, they don't know and don't care. The majority doesn't know or care about it.
Mr. Hilts, the vast majority of the players who fly the P-38 couldn't give a rats bellybutton about it's history. They fly it because it is the best at what it does. The same is true of every other common plane in game too. You may want to push it as far as you can and RTB, but many others do not. Don't judge all P-38 fliers by your standards.
FWIW, I love bring a plane that has been shot to hell all the way home. It is a challenge that I too enjoy.
That does not mean that you should be able to push your plane just that little bit extra though. It will always be just a little bit more, if the flaps had held just a little bit more I'd have made the shot and if it is modified so that you'd make that shot again, there'll be another shot that is just a bit harder that you'll almost make, and the cycle of whining about the P-38 will start all over again.
-
I readed somewhere that the FM2 had real autoretracting flaps The pilot could set his flap for combat at higher speeds . When he reached lower speeds they would come down.
As the speed increases they would employ
under the pressure of the speeding air.
I wouldn't whine if this is going to be implemented for this plane.