Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: wrag on November 20, 2005, 02:44:13 AM
-
Any opinions.
Here are some of mine. Haven't flown allot so.......... what I think I saw is.....
My opinion is the 109k4 is slower then the g10, even a g10 with gonds, OR the pony is now a little faster then before that last patch. Before this patch I had little trouble catching a pony, or a Typh, in a g10 if we were co-E on the deck. Now seems like the ponys can keep distance or even extend on the deck against 109k4 or g14? :(
Spit16 seems to generally climb with the k4 for abit. Although seems a good long bit sometimes. Perhaps that is historic? I don't know.
The G14 seems a slow "dog" with our without gonds and almost same as flying a g6 even with wep on :(
Think I would perfer losing the g14 and gettin back the g10 but thinkin they fm would be about the same :(
Hmm g14 has the g6 rudder? k4 has a larger rudder?
30mm no gonds on k4 is unhistoric????? didn't they arrive with gonds installed?
109s seem nuetered now. Seems the little they had to recommend em is ??????????
If this was done for TOD I don't know if i'll care to fly LW for it.
Oh Well just my opinion and that opinion not given with allot of flyin done, so if i'm way off sorry.
-
I agree they feel nutured. The K4 has about the same speed as the G10 at the deck but acceleration feels slower. P51's and most other planes can get away from me now. Spit 16's are extremely hard for me to catch and they actually outrun me most of the time if we both have the same starting speed.
No, I don't fly the K4 (or any other 109) with a DT at the moment.
The 190's have been porked for along time but fun to fly anyway untill the view was porked. The "The view is the best yet seen by this unit" that the RAF put in the test report about the 190 makes no sense if it was this bad.
And yes. you may call me a luftwhiner, I don't care.
As for the Spit 16 Wrag, it did have a great climbrate.
No point discussin the "issues" though. It will just turn in to another whine/flame thread which will eventually be closed and no changes nor any progress will be made.
-
You can always fly the Bf-110, it is an excellent air to air fighter in Aces High!!
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Yeah it is, like all twins.
-
It's got a select few excellent skins, as well. I like the Iraq skin (i've got a different Iraq skin being processed now) but I also like the tan one I made. I find myself flying the desert tan skin mostly.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You can always fly the Bf-110, it is an excellent air to air fighter in Aces High!!
All the best,
Crumpp
LOL imagine if we get Me-410, now that would be the best A2A and A2G fighter after 110, 190, and 109s(in Luft category;)) in AH!
-
well, wilbus... here's the lw whining thread. :noid
:aok
-
here's the lw whining thread.
Sure Shane, that's exactly what it is....
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Do luftwaffe planes just *suck*
OR
ALL flight sim games such as this or FA/WB cant model LW planes correctly
;)
-
ALL flight sim games such as this or FA/WB are not being modeled correctly
It looks to me like it is a lack of data, tikky.
Many people assume that the FW-190:
1. Gained a ton of weight
2. Engine power stayed the same
3. Allied data is more correct than the German data.
All are incorrect. The FW190 series gained less weight than many more familiar designs such as the Spitfire or the P 51 series. It gained as much horsepower or more than many designs as well.
AH FW-190 gain almost as much weight between the FW190A5 and FW-190A8 as the entire series did from FW-190A0 thru FW-190A9 in real life.
On the data, facts are the German data is built on hard science and not propaganda. When one becomes familiar with the details of the design it is easy to see the maintenance mistakes the allies make in their testing. Allied test's are good examples of "at least" performance not "best" or even "average" performance. The "average" performance can be found in the manufacturers performance numbers from the production trials.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
"The 190's have been porked for along time but fun to fly anyway untill the view was porked. The "The view is the best yet seen by this unit" that the RAF put in the test report about the 190 makes no sense if it was this bad."
Maybe they were comparing it to the Spitfire's forward view? ;)
http://212.213.161.215/kauppa/SpitBW.jpg
The view is also affected by the general attitude of the a/c in flight which, for 190, should be slightly nose down.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It looks to me like it is a lack of data, tikky.
Many people assume that the FW-190:
1. Gained a ton of weight
Many people confuse the 190A8 and the 190A8/R8
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It looks to me like it is a lack of data, tikky.
This makes sense. You'll have to search pretty hard to find real-life accounts of US or British pilots who thought that the German machines were crap.
- oldman
-
Believe they were comparing it to anything they had tested or seen up to that date.
Yes Shane, and I will use it as such, to vent :)
-
Um, in real life, G-10 could & did outrun Mustang D below 15.000 ft. So said Eric Hartmann.
-
The 190's have been porked for along time but fun to fly anyway untill the view was porked. The "The view is the best yet seen by this unit" that the RAF put in the test report about the 190 makes no sense if it was this bad.
I believe the actual words used were "search view" - which does make sense considering it was the first fighter they would have flown with a frameless, "teardrop" hood.
-
I believe the actual words used were "search view" - which does make sense considering it was the first fighter they would have flown with a frameless, "teardrop" hood.
The "sighting" view was better than the Spitfire as well.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Something else I've recently noticed.
DRAG! Used to when I came in to land I cut throttle and then had to side slip with the rudder to lose speed. Now seems like all I need to do is cut throttle.
k4 and g14 seem to Bleed E fast now!
-
The question Id see as most important would be...
"Are the remade planes more historically correct then the old ones?"
If the answer is "Yes" and a plane got nerfed then I would say "AWSOME!!" regardless of what plane it was.
If someone suspects that a planes characteristics (speed, climb, turn what ever) are incorrect then I would sudgest to dig out the data to prove it and post it. AH planes arnt modelled for ballanced or one sides increased or decreased enjoyment, they are modelled for historical accuracy.
Though one thing is important and that is bias. Everyone when interpreting history is biased. The allies won the war, its the "allies" that make the games. This is why it is so important to find historical evidence to compare to the implementation.
Tex
-
I noticed that too. I reduced throttle to increase drag, bleed excess energy, and cut the corner to gain angle for a gun solution.
Tried that with a Bf-109G2 against an La5 and went from having too much energy to immediately flopping in the stall the moment I reduced throttle. Very frustrating. Like slamming the brakes.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
If someone suspects that a planes characteristics (speed, climb, turn what ever) are incorrect then I would sudgest to dig out the data to prove it and post it. AH planes arnt modelled for ballanced or one sides increased or decreased enjoyment, they are modelled for historical accuracy.
That has already been done and AFAIK HTC has said they will correct the speeds.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
If someone suspects that a planes characteristics (speed, climb, turn what ever) are incorrect then I would sudgest to dig out the data to prove it and post it. AH planes arnt modelled for ballanced or one sides increased or decreased enjoyment, they are modelled for historical accuracy.
Good idea. I don't think that has been tried yet... :rolleyes:
As for
"Are the remade planes more historically correct then the old ones?" If the answer is "Yes" and a plane got nerfed then I would say "AWSOME!!" regardless of what plane it was.
Well, nurfed was really ment towards the 109 and 190's I think. Comapare those two where both of them have gotten big a** bars in the cockpits, deflection shot have been made damn hard because of lack of the front view.
The Pony was remade, the Jug aswell and the Spit, non of them got baloon bars. They all have as good or better views still. That is why wrag said "nurfed", well one of the reasons.
-
I can confirm that the 109s and Spits didn't change at least in terms of turn performance. Some slight changes, but nothing I'd say really serious.
Oh, one interesting bit, is that all the G variants turn about the same now. That doesn't necessarily mean they all feel or handle the same, but when doing the tightest turns possible, their turn circles are mostly simular. The G-2 and G-14 is almost the same, and the G-6 has a very slightly larger turning circle than others.
Will post the results soon in my turn performance thread.
-
I fly the F-4 or G-2, this thread doesn't affect me :)
Karaya
-
Flew the 109G6 tonite. I really liked the way it flew. It felt right, but then again I'm not a 109 pilot so what do I know :)
It sure looked like it would compete just fine
-
the 109 FM hasn't change at all.
HT Popped into another (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1872530#post1872530) thread and said so :)
-
Oh well.........
guess it's just my preception then...........
Seems like all planes wallow or waddle longer after a manuver.
But probably just my preception too.
-
Wait!!!
Are the ponys FASTER?????
109 haven't changed, BUT are the ponys faster?
-
Originally posted by wrag
Wait!!!
Are the ponys FASTER?????
109 haven't changed, BUT are the ponys faster?
Faster than 109s yes, and i'm afraid soon are going to be faster than Me262s:)
-
Ahhhem....
Listen up Gentleman. Click on the image below, insert the CD, and repeat after me:
There is no change to the Flight Model
There is no change to the Flight Model
Ewwww weeeeeeee oOOOOOOOOO
(http://img14.potato.com/loc102/th_26e_covert_hypnosis.jpg) (http://img14.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc102&image=26e_covert_hypnosis.jpg)
-
Hehe -
I'm almost curious that when the 190s were released, so were the "XTRA LARGE TREES". I noticed then that when low to the ground - everything seemed slower - due to the scale of the terrain...the huge tress specifically
so I went and did some experimenting off line...
Currently the terrain tiles are 512x512pixels (don't hold me to this, been awhile since I messed with em)...
Anyway - I enlarged a few of them to 2048x2048 pixels for grins...I smoothed the color out and then added some grain to it. Stuck it on a terrain and did some flying around.
Down on the deck - 300 mph seemed fast....then as soon as you flew over a base which had the 512x512 tile...the plane came to a crawl...
The impression of speed was so much greater with the higher res - due to the fact that there was a "terrain change"(pixel) every 1.2 or so feet as compared to a change around every 5 feet in the AH world.
So I'm just kinda curious if people attributed this illusion of planes being slower due to the tree features being larger, and since the 190 was new, everyone was trying it out and getting fooled by the terrain illusion...which would've made it seem slow - at least compared to the previous version.
-
So I'm just kinda curious if people attributed this illusion of planes being slower due to the tree features being larger, and since the 190 was new, everyone was trying it out and getting fooled by the terrain illusion...which would've made it seem slow - at least compared to the previous version.
To me the speed is relative in a fight. Either I am fast enough or not. I find a very shallow climb over 300mph leaves most aircraft behind in the Focke Wulf.
Seems more to do with AoA you can pull. No matter what the speed or how gently the AoA is changed it is restricted severely.
Today I flew an La 5 against a very good pilot in the FW190. It was Child’s play to stick with him the vertical. In fact my biggest problem was bleeding my excess speed and I fought with my throttle reduced for much of the fight. The FW 190 started with an energy advantage but I was able to follow him up too close for him effective reverse in the first zoom after reversing 180 at the merge. After that there was nothing he could do to shake me.
I then flew around on his six till I got bored so I exploded him.
It was not like that before. Flying the FW190 I could maneuver with La5's as long as I did not let my speed drop too much.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
always remember this :)
She (La-5) was a superlative low-to-medium altitude air superiority aircraft, excelling in close combat and the master of any Messerschmitt Bf 109 or Focke Wulf Fw 190 in such a dogfight.
Ladislav Valousek, Czech La-5FN pilot
-
She (La-5) was a superlative low-to-medium altitude air superiority aircraft, excelling in close combat and the master of any Messerschmitt Bf 109 or Focke Wulf Fw 190 in such a dogfight.
These pilot anecdotes kill us.
Luftwaffe evaluations recommend avoiding prolonged turning engagements against the La5. They point out the FW-190 is superior in the high speed turn, zoom, and dive.
They recommend not letting your speed drop below best climb, if it does, shallow dive out and zoom up to regain position for reattack.
The Luftwaffe reccomendations say nothing about avoid dogfighting the La5. Many FW190 pilots were very successful against the La 5 series, Emil Lang for example:
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/lang.html
I have some guncamera footage of an La5 vs FW-190 dogfight. See if I cannot dig it out.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
sounds like the same thing to me -
luftwaffe reccomends avoiding prolong turns with la5...and pilot dude says the la5 is superior to in close combat.
'bout he right eqaution...but I'm sure we can skew it one way or another :)
-
luftwaffe reccomends avoiding prolong turns with la5...and pilot dude says the la5 is superior to in close combat.
Avoiding prolonged turns is NOT the same as avoiding close combat. Nowhere in the Luftwaffe's recommendation does it say avoid dogfighting with a La5.
As the test pilot from the RAE commented, "Turning does not win Air to Air engagements".
but I'm sure we can skew it one way or another
WTF is that supposed to mean? The data is in black and white.
The La5 pilot opinion is valid from his point of view. The FW 190's pilot’s opinion is equally valid from his point of view. Neither pilot "avoided" close combat.
Problem is when readers take a pilots opinion as absolute fact and make one sided judgements based off of them. Statements like:
She (La-5) was a superlative low-to-medium altitude air superiority aircraft, excelling in close combat and the master of any Messerschmitt Bf 109 or Focke Wulf Fw 190 in such a dogfight.
Which is purely pilot opinion based off confidence in his aircraft.
OR
I feared no fighter I could see in my Focke Wulf
Only tell us that these aircraft were competent designs that in the hands of a trained pilot could master their opponents.
While the majority of air engagements in WWII were of the ambush type, to claim one side was only limited to such victories is pure bunk. Dogfighting occurred on both sides. Interesting fact is that when it did occur victory ratios tend to be very even regardless of aircraft type. Position tends to have much more of an effect on a fight than aircraft performance. Sweeping claims of "my fighter met yours equally in a dogfight and totally destroyed them" do not bear out when the details are examined.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Finaly It always amazes me, how people clame things changed, with the 109s this version none of there performance changed. The 109k4 perfomes exatly like the 109G10 did.
HiTech
well something has changed like the spit 5 it could never climb with me before in a g10/k4 or for the first 2 days of the patch ... NOW IT CAN same with the zekes and the spit 16 why is that?.. perhaps the 109 k4 still has the same model as the g10 but something has changed somewere
my point is quite simple spits and zeros cant climb with a K4.
but now sudenly like magic they can .
Say what you want, but its happening, never did before the patch
or in any other sims ive flown. The K4 out climbs it all
why would there be all the posts about it if people didnt see it happening?
-
[well something has changed like the spit 5 it could never climb with me before in a g10/k4 or for the first 2 days of the patch ... NOW IT CAN same with the zekes and the spit 16 why is that?.. perhaps the 109 k4 still has the same model as the g10 but something has changed somewere
my point is quite simple spits and zeros cant climb with a K4.
but now sudenly like magic they can .
Say what you want, but its happening, never did before the patch
or in any other sims ive flown. The K4 out climbs it all
why would there be all the posts about it if people didnt see it happening? [/B][/QUOTE]
Moin
You say a zero can climp with a K4 :confused: sorry i never saw this
And a spit16 you are right .it can be a hard target but be sure the k4 climps better. Mostly i fly the k4 and mostly i have a problem to follow the enemys not because im to slow because im to fast.
You are right if you say there have changed something because the k4 feels more better as the g10 i dont know how to explain but my K/D rised with this plan. Mybe it is because i only fly the k4 with out DT.
Top speed is for me ok. A Tempest on the deck did have trobel to extend from my K4.
I dont know how but i love this K4 more than the old g10. I hered a lot about that there is nothing changed. But there must be somthing. I feel god and realy save in this plan "nearly unbeatable;) ".
Mybe it is only the name K4 sounds more stronger than g10 i think lol.
cu chris3