Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Hajo on December 17, 2005, 04:22:16 PM
-
Decided to fly the 109s extensively see if anything has changed besides the obvious ammo loadout etc. These are my opinions and not necesaarily the opinions of our sponsors
G14....imho on par or just a smidge better then the past G6. Has a very small performance envelope as does the K4. By envelope I mean at what speed the plane operates the best. 250 - 210 mph might as well fly a garbage truck. Anything over 400 starts to stiffen and actually compress as did some 109s before. But the "envelope seems to have narrowed.
K4 is worthless unless you want to fly around at exactly 400mph and take lead shots or HO's. Maneuverability is horrible. The climb rate seems to be slower the the old G10 which imho appears to have been a better fighter then either the K4 or the G14.
Flaps......still haven't been attended to. When some of the models have leading edge slats to increase maneuverability why do they just about stall in a turn at 210 mph? For an aircraft that shot down thousands of Allied Aircraft during WWII and was manufactured after WWII for some years by Spain because of it's success as a fighter. Why is it so bad here?
Considering ammo lethality, handling at low speeds or speeds slightly in excess of 400mph the way it flies here it has to be near the bottom of the pack on aircraft chosen to fly. In here just about everything handles much better in most areas then the 190s or 109s in this game. If the FM is accurate in Aces High then how the hell did the LW Pilots have the victories they totaled during WWII? We've got to get the Flaps situation rectified to make these planes viable aircraft in Aces High. Be interested to see the sorties that 109s and 190s have in comparison to other aircraft in Aces High.
Again this is just my opinion....something seems different since the last version. Of course there is a good chance I may be wrong. But that would be highly unusuall :rofl
-
Originally posted by Hajo
Decided to fly the 109s extensively see if anything has changed besides the obvious ammo loadout etc. These are my opinions and not necesaarily the opinions of our sponsors
G14....imho on par or just a smidge better then the past G6. Has a very small performance envelope as does the K4. By envelope I mean at what speed the plane operates the best. 250 - 210 mph might as well fly a garbage truck. Anything over 400 starts to stiffen and actually compress as did some 109s before. But the "envelope seems to have narrowed.
K4 is worthless unless you want to fly around at exactly 400mph and take lead shots or HO's. Maneuverability is horrible. The climb rate seems to be slower the the old G10 which imho appears to have been a better fighter then either the K4 or the G14.
Flaps......still haven't been attended to. When some of the models have leading edge slats to increase maneuverability why do they just about stall in a turn at 210 mph? For an aircraft that shot down thousands of Allied Aircraft during WWII and was manufactured after WWII for some years by Spain because of it's success as a fighter. Why is it so bad here?
Considering ammo lethality, handling at low speeds or speeds slightly in excess of 400mph the way it flies here it has to be near the bottom of the pack on aircraft chosen to fly. In here just about everything handles much better in most areas then the 190s or 109s in this game. If the FM is accurate in Aces High then how the hell did the LW Pilots have the victories they totaled during WWII? We've got to get the Flaps situation rectified to make these planes viable aircraft in Aces High. Be interested to see the sorties that 109s and 190s have in comparison to other aircraft in Aces High.
Again this is just my opinion....something seems different since the last version. Of course there is a good chance I may be wrong. But that would be highly unusuall :rofl
I'm not arguing with you. Having never flown a real Fw190 or 109 I can't say but for certain they are inferior rides in almost every respect when compared to the majority of the planeset in AH. As far as LW pilots kills go though there's a few things to consider. LW pilots flew until they died, they were not rotated out of action, something like 90% of all air to air kills were tallied by 10% of the pilots on all sides. On the western front ALOT of kills, especially prior to long-ranged bomber escort fighters arrived were unescorted bombers. In Poland and the Eastern front, the majority of LW kills were outnumbered 'green' pilots often in obsolete aircraft, including bi-planes, until near the end of the war. So, while I am not belittling the tallies of the LW aces, they had a massive experience, numerical and equipment advantage on their opponents during most phases in all theaters except perhaps during the Battle of Britain and after the occupation of Italy just prior to the Normandy invasion when the Germans irrevocably lost air supremacy over Western Europe for the remainder of the war.
Zazen
-
Zazen I'm comparing 109s within the game at different times.
I'm not talking about individual kills by Pilots per se but about total kills by 109s and 190s. The aircraft specifically. The performance during WWII of these aircraft were very good judging by the total number of kills each fighter attained during the War. The only downside that was evident to LW fighters in general was their short range. As far as performance on the Eastern and Western Fronts as Fighters they were a very worthy adversary. What I am suggesting is that apparently they were a very good fighter during the War, and seems that in Aces High I think most would agree that here they are lackluster at best. Some perform very well in specific areas but as a whole in Aces High they seem to be good say in climb....but have poor rate of turn and poor manueverability at low or high speeds. Guess what I am saying LW fighters out of 3 catagories can only score high in 1, instead of say two of the three. Kick in armament and flap usage , that pretty well places them in the bottom say 5 to 10% of efficient fighters in Aces High MA.
Again...just my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Hajo
Zazen I'm comparing 109s within the game at different times.
I'm not talking about individual kills by Pilots per se but about total kills by 109s and 190s. The aircraft specifically. The performance during WWII of these aircraft were very good judging by the total number of kills each fighter attained during the War. The only downside that was evident to LW fighters in general was their short range. As far as performance on the Eastern and Western Fronts as Fighters they were a very worthy adversary. What I am suggesting is that apparently they were a very good fighter during the War, and seems that in Aces High I think most would agree that here they are lackluster at best. Some perform very well in specific areas but as a whole in Aces High they seem to be good say in climb....but have poor rate of turn and poor manueverability at low or high speeds. Guess what I am saying LW fighters out of 3 catagories can only score high in 1, instead of say two of the three. Kick in armament and flap usage , that pretty well places them in the bottom say 5 to 10% of efficient fighters in Aces High MA.
Again...just my opinion.
Yes, I see. But, I think you may be overestimating how good they really were in WWII. Kill statistics can be misleading as a good proportion were un-escorted bombers, bi-planes and grossly obsolete aircraft with complete rookie pilots. Both the 109 and the 190 are essentially 1939'ish designs, other than the 262 those two types of aircraft were the only true fighters the LW had. The allies on the other hand evolved many, many effective types of fighters more or less canning their circa 1939 aircraft like the Hurricane and the P40 as soon as they had developed better engines and airframe designs to accomodate them. It was very widely agreed even by the Luftwaffe that by late 1943 and certainly by 1944 that the LW's fighter designs were not competitive with contemporary allied aircraft. The fact that the LW was fighting a defensive airiel campaign by that point, allowing it to preserve veteran pilots bailing/ditching over friendly territory allowed them to maintain a persistant if waning defense.
Zazen
-
I'm not saying they are modeled accurately or totally screwed up, but I don't think they are as bad as people say they are. I mainly fly P38L, but I have had some good fights in a 109. 109s are fun to mess around in, I was in a fight 2 seafires vs me in a 109G14 on the deck and I was able to get the better of them. Don't fly 109's horizontally, use that powerful engines (and flaps are useful whether you say they are or not). Use the 30mm option, less rounds but lighter than the 20mm loadout and 1 shot will down any fighter. I have convergence set to 600 but will not shoot until within 400. I had to land due to fuel before running out of ammo.
-
Originally posted by Hajo
Decided to fly the 109s extensively
Who are you and what did you do with Hajo.
-
I was flying the 109F4 and G6 a lot in version 2.5, I am now looking for a new ride. I like the Spit16, and my old buddy the 190A8. The A8 is a piece of kee rap, but it dives nice, shoots welll, and anything if front of your guns dies :)
The front views of the are porked in Ver 2.6; get used to it.
The 109F4 had it’s teeth pulled out; get used to it.
The G6 lost it’s punch; get used to it.
The G10 is dead; get used to it.
The 14 is the old G6, or so we are told, the old G6 was a pretty nice ride, the new 14 compresses just to spite you. And did I mention that the front view sucks?
The K4 has just the few rounds of 30mm; doesn’t climb like a G10, compresses just to spite you.
The compression on the new 109 is much worse than the old 109s, it starts sooner, and locks you up into a tough to get out of dive, I auger too much in it.
As for flaps in the Luft Wobble rides, this has been hashed over too many times. In spite of strong evidence that the flaps could deploy at higher speed in the 109s and 190’s it ain’t a gonna change; get used to it.
HT’s idea of realistic is that we put a fat bunch of bars in front of you that you can’t look around. In real life, a pilot can make small subconscious movements of his head to look around the struts in the cockpit. Exactly like you look around the struts in you car without really thinking about it. This has normally been modeled in flight sims by making the bars a bit smaller than it real life. A virtual world way of trying to make the experience more like what you would have in real life. In AH2 it is like the pilots head is rooted in cement in each view, and can only be moved slowly with the arrow or page up/down keys.
The 190s in this game are a joke. The Dora had a massively powerful engine with 2,240 hp, and a normal fully loaded weight of 9414 lbs. The LA7 had a 1,840 hp engine at 7308 lbs.
This gives the Dora a Hp/Wt ratio of about 95% of the Lavotchkin 7. Yet look at the acceleration difference. Both planes had almost identical wing areas, 18.3 sq meters for the Dora, and 17.5 sq meters for the LA7. The LA7 had significantly better wing loading, of 194 kg/sq meter, than the Dora’s 258 kg/sq meter. I could be wrong here, but with all that wing and drag, the LA7 shouldn’t accelerate much faster than a Dora, given the almost identical hp/wt ratio. The LA will of course out turn the Dora quite easily given the wing loading.
Yet we see the following acceleration rates from the Dora and the LA7 Netaces Accleration Comparison Page (http://www.netaces.org/ahplanes/comparisons/acceloverview.htm#title) That the Dora’s acceleration is abysmal compared to the LA7.
The LW rides in LA's High suck; get used to it, because it won't change. And I predicte will be one of the reasons that TOD will be a big flop.
Take a Spit or a LA7. Spitfires and LA’s flew close to 40% of the sorties in the Main Arcade last month. And there is a reason.
-
Speaking from within the game inasmuch as I've flown 109s almost exclusively for the last year
they seem to be dummied down a bit over at least the last release.
109F for sure doesnt handle as well as it used to particularly when low and slow which has led me to fly the other varients more.
None handle quite the way Im used to or would like But at least with the other varients they are a tad faster.
also the 20MM dont seem to be as leathal in the 109f as they are in other models (yes without gondolas)
G14 IMO doesnt deserve the type of ENY it has.
Yes it has those nasty 30 cal but onlyin a very limited amount and the plane it self handles like crap particularly if you get slow
To me it seems to fly more like a 190
IT does however climb well if you have a head of steam up and I've surprised a few people who thought they were going to go veiticle and out climb me. But you need that head of steam first.
Flies TERRIBLE slow
By contrast and I havent flown the 190s as much. Some of them seem to turn bit better then I remember. The D9 in particular turns ALOT better now then I remember it and seems to fly fairly well even when low & slow.
While the A5 doesnt seem to turn as well as I remember.
-
"And I predicte will be one of the reasons that TOD will be a big flop."
I hope you are wrong -and fear that you are right... :(
-C+
-
Im not sure....
I'm not a good pilot but I've always flown 109s for years. It's hard to fight with 109s but then again it was always difficult. I've inquired about the slats when I tested the turn radiuses for the fighter planes and the answer I got was that the 109 is already heavily influenced by the slats. The turn radius I've tested out myself - and found not much difference from the previous versions.
The only 'problem' I see with 109s is that some people are claiming the speeds for some of them are off, and the flap deployment speeds are wrong. Other than that I can't see or feel what's so different about them in version 2.06.
...
They were always garbage trucks, always stiffens up at hard speeds, always horrible in maneuverability, always stalled/destabilized at the slightest stick pull, always had sucky ammo.... and yes, everything else handles better than 109s and 190s, with even P-47s flying circles around the thing.
But again, that's how it always was in AH. No change at all IMO.
It doesn't pull turns like Spits, nor can it follow even P-47s in a turn, as a matter of fact. It doesn't have bullshi* Hizookas nor easy-fire 50cals... it can't pop flaps out at 250mph and start outmaneuvering the first merge - which by the way, every US fighter at least more than twice the weight of 109s can pull off in a dime. All it can do is climb and accelerate.
It was always like that.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
It was always like that.
and we liked it!!!! :rofl
I spend most of my time in a k4, it ain't so bad,ask Nath he seems to do well in one
-
Kweassa....Shamus and I both have been here for a long time. And quite frankly flew the 109 a lot. Yup....that's the way it is here. And the flap problem can aleviate that. Not questioning the way it is here. Am questioning the records of the 190s and 109s in real life as compared to how it flies in Aces High. From 1943 onwards the LW usually flew against greater numbers and still managed to do very well. Seems to me they shot down more then their share considering the numbers the last half of the war. It won't do that here. If there is an Axis versus Allied Tod. LW going to be hard pressed to find Pilots on a regular basis.
Going over records, first hand accounts and gun cam. I don't think they were as bad in real life as they appear to be here.
Armament.....considered the worst by all accounts by consesus on Posts on these boards. Still no flap deployment along with the leading edge slats which should give the 109 better low speed handling. When on runway I hear the slats before take off....and when breaking when landing. Hear nothing when flying but the stall horn....and one would think that when leading edge slats deployed ones nose would go up even minutely, but should be noticable....I notice nothing?
-
Originally posted by Hajo
When on runway I hear the slats before take off....and when breaking when landing. Hear nothing when flying but the stall horn....and one would think that when leading edge slats deployed ones nose would go up even minutely, but should be noticable....I notice nothing?
Please don't be insulted, but do you have stall limiter on?
If so, turn it off. The slats come out in the F4 at as high as about 110mph (maybe a bit more) in a hard turn. And of course you cut throttle in a hard turn, I often turn off engine in the first 180 degrees. And the + and - keys are very important.
Not that I think the slats out helps that much in a turn.
-
Never have and never will use stall limiter :D
-
Stall limiter was put in the game strictly for Dlamb's use, nobody else should have this option enabled.
(WOOOOO, im on my 420th post...;) ;) ;) )
*Runs the the basement.. err.. greenhouse*
-
You blew it, 421.. now pass the bowl, hogboy.
-
lol 190s are a JOKE.
The D9 flys like its ready to dip a wing at 300mph. They are badly in need of a looksee. I do not beleive for a second that the same people building the first operational jet bombers, jet fighters, and rocket powered fighters.... Where dumb enough to build the equivilant of what the 190s are right now in AH. They are dogs in every respect.
I dont blame shawk for running and Bnzing and doing nothing but E fighting in his D9. You get someone stuck on you in a 190 and you are screwed. Unless they are a complete newb and dont know how to use a throtle. Flying them is like punishing yourself.
Like i said, I do not beleive that the germans where stupid enough to build a plane that flys like the 190s fly in AH now. Yeah, they lost the war, but they lost it because they were getting gang banged from all sides. Not because they had chitty planes.
The flaps NEED to be fixed. Please god fix the flaps on the 109s atleast. They are wrong, we know this. Its been proven, over and over and over... It is a real shame that a plane like the A8, which was the best A version of them all, is such a piece of crap in AH. It was said to be on par with the P47s of its day. A B26 could out turn the A8's we have now.... Not to mention handle better at low speed. Give me a B26 and I'll show you.
Oh yeah. Please fix the 109s' flaps.
One more thing... Before someone goes saying I am calling HT and pyro dumb i didnt. I just do not beleive they are modeled anywhere near what they where in real life. From all the pilot's i've heard and read about talking about the 190s and 109s... They just do not seem close to what we got.
-
Originally posted by Hajo
And the flap problem can aleviate that.
...
Going over records, first hand accounts and gun cam. I don't think they were as bad in real life as they appear to be here.
...
Still no flap deployment along with the leading edge slats which should give the 109 better low speed handling. When on runway I hear the slats before take off....and when breaking when landing. Hear nothing when flying but the stall horn....and one would think that when leading edge slats deployed ones nose would go up even minutely, but should be noticable....I notice nothing?
If you allow 109 to daploy flaps at high speeds you'd have to allow it for all planes. I'd rather have ALL planes restricted to flap use under 200 mph, including P51/47/38. The marge - pull out flaps - turn hard routine is BS. I do believe it was possible in real life but I also believe stalls and spins were harder to recover from in real life. Just my opinion, no hard evidence.
when the slats deploy you do not gain any significant amount of lift. What they do is delay the stall and allow further increase of the attack angle. Then you get the extra lift.
Originally posted by Kweassa
It doesn't pull turns like Spits, nor can it follow even P-47s in a turn, as a matter of fact. It doesn't have bullshi* Hizookas nor easy-fire 50cals... it can't pop flaps out at 250mph and start outmaneuvering the first merge - which by the way, every US fighter at least more than twice the weight of 109s can pull off in a dime. All it can do is climb and accelerate.
From your turn ability test:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=166537
Type (SL angle used)
- time to complete under normal setting (average turn speed), radius
- time to complete under one notch of flap (average turn speed), radius
- time to complete under full flap (average turn speed), radius
the worst turning 109:
Bf109K-4 (1.0/1.2/1.2) *NEW*
- 18 seconds (183mph), 233.3m
- 19 seconds (163mph), 220.4m
- 19 seconds (142mph), 191.5m
P-47D-40 (0.05)
- 24 seconds (159mph), 271.6m
- 22 seconds (151mph), 236.4m
- 23 seconds (124mph), 203.0m
The worst turning 109, even without flaps, turns both tighter and quicker than a Jug even with some flaps. The only advantage of the jug is when flying extremely slow with full flaps out. The K4 will still complete a turn 4 whole seconds quicker (about 25% better). Meaning, at anything but a scissor fight that got real slow, advantage to the 109.
That being said, the 109 are extremely unstable at slow speeds relative to some other planes. The P51 and La7 stall increadibly gently though I recall they were notorious in that respect. THAT aspect should be looked in to.
Bozon
-
And yet I continue to rack up plenty of kills in them, weird huh?
-
If you allow 109 to daploy flaps at high speeds you'd have to allow it for all planes. I'd rather have ALL planes restricted to flap use under 200 mph, including P51/47/38. The marge - pull out flaps - turn hard routine is BS. I do believe it was possible in real life but I also believe stalls and spins were harder to recover from in real life. Just my opinion, no hard evidence.
UH?! Why would they have to be enabled for all planes? Shouldn't that be the same as "because P51's can deploy them at 400mph that should have to be done for all planes"?
It's been PROVEN the 109's flaps could be deployed in far greater speeds then they can be now (it's what? 170mph now?). Pyro mentioned in a post not long ago they were suposed to have been changed for the latest release but they were somehow "overlooked". Well, we've waited 6 or 7 years for em to be changed guess we can wait a few more versions.
There is nothing that says all planes should have flap changes because the 109's get it Bozon.
-
Wil beat me too it.....
-
One thing no one ever takes into account in these "discussions" is that most AH fights are on the deck. Once you add 15-20k to these fights, the performance gaps really close up. Now I’m not saying the LW planes don't need some looking into, but it’s silly to compare what we do in the MA to actual WWII fights. TOD will be a much more fair comparison when it’s released. You watch...in TOD, the LW planes will do much better than they do in the MA.
-
Edit for the post above:
What you want is to dumb the game down even further then it is now. Next step will be making all plane turn equal and have the same max speed because noone should have an unfair advantage...
Bozon, this is not ment as an attack on you nor any kind of flame. Just saying...
-
I dont think that deploying flaps on 109 will improve his Main Arcade flying effectiveness a lot. IMO is more a matter of general FM stability (compression, etc.): maximum speeds at altitudes and ROC are not everything.
Another real pig, as far as stability is concerned, is the C.205. I've been flying it for ages and, even compared to 109s, she is a real unstable a/c. I guess his FM has been left behind as well. When I fly a 205 I understand how pig is compared to a 109, when I fly a 109 I understand how pig is compared to a P51. How could they be so different in handling in the real thing? AFAIK, axis air forces lost the war due to numbers, bombing and attrition (and allied tanks on runways, I know :)), not becouse a/c where so poor in comparison.
Flying P51s and Spitfires in combat is so easy that our whole squad (and we are about 10) got bored a long time ago. I dont say that P51 and Spits FMs are wrong, I simply say that 205, 109, 190 are so pig-ish in comparison that something could be wrong. Some FM are so forgiving that you can even dogfight without looking at your most important gauges. Some others are just the opposite. Too much difference, not in general performance (speed, ROC), rather in flyability (sp?).
And racking up kills in a 109K means nothing. The whole Main Arcade is so full of "takeoff, fly into the nearest furball, f**k the SA, kill and die, so you dont have even to loose time to rtb" (TM) gamers that even a well flown K-4 or 205 can do very good.
I'm afraid that the real TOD will have very few gamers flying in the LW/RA ranks. Like in Scenarios, where you have to pick up walk-ons and move entire flights from allied to axis to be able to begin. Flying axis can be rewarding but, after the last G-10/K-4/30mm things and comparing FMs after every patch, is getting less and less fun. When a game is not fun/intersting for both sides some people could stop paying and playing. The last step of the Main Arcade will be a "what-if 1946?" arena, with americans and british fighting Red Stars above Berlin; i.e. Spitfires and Ponies fighting La7. Ah, I was forgetting Nikis. Oh, look, it is already happening :D
-
Holy worlds Gatt an Hajo
nothing to be added, you said all:
No more Sa, LWs FMs at the worlst and Allied at the best.....
I am very sad, after all these years, to admit AH is more & more a shoot'em up game and less & less a simulation. :furious
-
Originally posted by Zazen13
something like 90% of all air to air kills were tallied by 10% of the pilots on all sides.
Zazen
maybe HTC have modelled the 109 perfectly then and it is unable to be flown well by 90% of AH players with only 10% able to ;)
well done Pyro et co.!
-
From everything I have read, the pucker factor in landing a 109, was akin to shooting a carrier approach at night. You had a very narrow speed/power range to play with.
I have flown for and against LW in the SE arena. When matched against contemporary 47's 51's, LaLa's they give as good as they take. The fights come down to pilot skill, and the luck of the bounce.
IMO, what kills the LW, and to a lesser extent the 47 and 51 in the MA, is the one, two, LaLa, Spit punch. I'll fight a LaLa or Spit at 1K and closing in the MA. When I have a LaLa at one 1K, with Spit 1K behind him, I might as well pull out my .45 end the fight then and their. Gives them more time to find their next victim:-)
TOD should correct this by matching apples to apples, and I believe we are all in for some fun fights.
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
From everything I have read, the pucker factor in landing a 109, was akin to shooting a carrier approach at night. You had a very narrow speed/power range to play with.
Bf 109 D:
"The controls, sensitive ailerons, and tail group were fully effective to the time the wheels touched the ground. So much for that."
- US Marine Corps major Al Williams. Source: Bf 109D test flight, 1938.
Me 109 G-2/G-6:
- Pokela has told me that he took special care to teach the proper take-off and landing on the Me. How about the Germans, I've heard they didn't believe you could fit the planes in our small fields?
"They spoke of how the final approach speed should be 220 km/h. That would overshoot the field, we said. We landed at 180. "
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä.
Me 109 G-6:
In landing the Me was stable. The leading edge slats were quick and reliable, and they prevented the plane from lurching in slow speeds and made it possible to make "stall landings" to short fields. The problem in landings was the long nose, so the plane was partly controlled by touch in the final seconds of landing.
- Torsti Tallgren, Finnish post war fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G-6:
"The Me was stable on landings. The quickly reacing automatic wing slats negated any swaying on slow speeds and made it possible to make "stall landings" to small fields. The problem in stall landings was the long nose, which hindered visibility forward. Because this controlling at the last stages of landing was done partly by sense of touch on the controls."
- Torsti Tallgren, Finnish post war fighter pilot. Source: Interview of Torsti Tallgren by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
Me 109 G-6:
Landing was slightly problematic if the approach was straight, with slight overspeed at about 180 km/h. Landing was extremely easy and pleasing when done with shallow descending turn, as then you could see easily the landing point. You had a little throttle, speed 150-160 km/h, 145 km/h at final. You controlled the descent speed with the engine and there was no problems, the feeling was the same as with Stieglitz. If I recall correctly the Me "sits down" at 140-142 km/h.
The takeoff and landing accidents were largely result from lack of experience in training. People didn't know what to do and how to do it. As a result the plane was respected too much, and pilots were too careful. The plane carried the man, and the man didn't control his plane.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G:
"Speed at 150 knots or less, gear select to DOWN and activate the button and feel the gear come down asymmetrically. Check the mechanical indicators (ignore the electric position indicators), pitch fully fine... fuel - both boost pumps ON. If you have less than 1/4 fuel and the rear pump is not on the engine may stop in the three-point attitude. Rad flaps to full open and wings flaps to 10 degrees to 15 degrees. As the wing passes the threshold downwind - take all the power off and roll into the finals turn, cranking the flap like mad as you go. The important things is to set up a highish rate of descent, curved approach. The aircraft is reluctant to lose speed around finals so ideally you should initiate the turn quite slow at about 100-105. Slats normally deploy half way round finals but you the pilot are not aware they have come out. The ideal is to keep turning with the speed slowly bleeding, and roll out at about 10 feet at the right speed and just starting to transition to the three point attitude, the last speed I usually see is just about 90; I'm normally too busy to look after that!
The '109 is one of the most controllable aircraft that I have flown at slow speed around finals, and provided you don't get too slow is one of the easiest to three point. It just feels right ! The only problem is getting it too slow. If this happens you end up with a very high sink rate, very quickly and absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands !
Once down on three points the aircraft tends to stay down - but this is when you have to be careful. The forward view has gone to hell and you cannot afford to let any sort of swing develop. The problem is that the initial detection is more difficult. The aeroplane is completely unpredictable and can diverge in either direction. There never seems to be any pattern to this. Sometimes the most immaculate three pointer will turn into a potential disaster half way through the landing roll. Other times a ropey landing will roll thraight as an arrow!"
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).
Me 109 G:
"I didn't notice any special hardships in landings."
-Jorma Karhunen, Finnish fighter ace. 36 1/2 victories, fighter squadron commander. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G-2:
"Landing was normal."
-Lasse Kilpinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"
Me 109 G:
"It was beneficial to keep the throttle a little open when landing. This made the landings softer and almost all three-point landings were successful with this technique. During landings the leading edge slats were fully open. But there was no troubles in landing even with throttle at idle."
-Mikko Lallukka, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"
Me 109 G:
"Good in the Me? Good flying characterics, powerful engine and good take-off and landing characterics."
- Onni Kuuluvainen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G:
"Landing: landing glide using engine power and the following light wheel touchdown was easy and non-problematic. I didn't have any trouble in landings even when a tire exploded in my first Messerschmitt flight."
-Otso Leskinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G:
"MT could "sit down" on field easily, without any problems. Of all different planes I have flown the easiest to fly were the Pyry (advanced trainer) and the Messerschmitt."
- Esko Nuuttila, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G:
"Takeoff and landing are known as troublesome, but in my opinion there is much more rumours around than what actually happened. There sure was some tendency to swing and it surely swerved if you didn't take into account. But I got the correct training for Messerchmitt and it helped me during my whole career. It was: "lock tailwheel, open up the throttle smoothly. When the speed increases correct any tendency to swing with your feet. Use the stick normally. Lift the tailwheel and pull plane into the sky.
Training to Me? It depended on the teacher. I got good training. First you had to know all the knobs and meters in the cockpit. Then you got the advice for takeoff and landing. Landing was easy in my opinion. In cold weather it was useful to have some RPMs during the finals and kill throttle just before flaring."
- Atte Nyman, , Finnish fighter ace. 5 victories. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"
Me 109 G:
There wasn't any special problems with landing.
- Reino Suhonen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G:
Landing: approach field with about 250 km/h speed. When turning to landing direction slow down to 200-210 and always try to land as close to the beginning of runway as possible, so you won't have problems in small fields. Gear is out, flaps out, radiator open - those operations were done at 220-240 km/h speed. Bring plane to landing direction's center and sit down on three points at 180 km/h.
- Pekka Tanner, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
-
Originally posted by Hajo
Decided to fly the 109s extensively see if anything has changed besides the obvious ammo loadout etc. These are my opinions and not necesaarily the opinions of our sponsors
G14....imho on par or just a smidge better then the past G6. Has a very small performance envelope as does the K4. By envelope I mean at what speed the plane operates the best. 250 - 210 mph might as well fly a garbage truck. Anything over 400 starts to stiffen and actually compress as did some 109s before. But the "envelope seems to have narrowed.
K4 is worthless unless you want to fly around at exactly 400mph and take lead shots or HO's. Maneuverability is horrible. The climb rate seems to be slower the the old G10 which imho appears to have been a better fighter then either the K4 or the G14.
Flaps......still haven't been attended to. When some of the models have leading edge slats to increase maneuverability why do they just about stall in a turn at 210 mph? For an aircraft that shot down thousands of Allied Aircraft during WWII and was manufactured after WWII for some years by Spain because of it's success as a fighter. Why is it so bad here?
Considering ammo lethality, handling at low speeds or speeds slightly in excess of 400mph the way it flies here it has to be near the bottom of the pack on aircraft chosen to fly. In here just about everything handles much better in most areas then the 190s or 109s in this game. If the FM is accurate in Aces High then how the hell did the LW Pilots have the victories they totaled during WWII? We've got to get the Flaps situation rectified to make these planes viable aircraft in Aces High. Be interested to see the sorties that 109s and 190s have in comparison to other aircraft in Aces High.
Again this is just my opinion....something seems different since the last version. Of course there is a good chance I may be wrong. But that would be highly unusuall :rofl
HALO, I agree with you about the 109's and the later comments on 190's, also ..... I liked the G 10, it was better than all of them .
CHECKERS
-
Landing the 109 in AH: Lovely ;)
-
I'll be flying 109s in ToD until the RAF arrives and i can fly a mossie. We can wing together hajooooo.:) Which 109 would i be flying anyway? the g14 or the k4?
-
Yep last re-tool definitly turned the german planes into the luftpanzies.
:mad:
-
Good points there, Grendel. OTOH, if Pyro had read this account of a 109 landing, it is easy to see why he made a mistake in the 109 low speed flight characteristics..
"Don't let the speed drop too much. Gear down and full flap. You are very busy, and this is where many 109 pilots come to grief. Nose high and plenty of power as the angle of attack increases and drag builds. As speed decays through 160kph, the port wing becomes heavy. Ease the stick to the right to counter it, but gently. If speed drops off too quickly, drop the nose a tad. Whatever you do, don't bang the throttle open now: if you do, the torque will roll you uncontrollably to the port and you've no height left in which to recover. Ease onto the ground at about 135kph."
-
if you do, the torque will roll you uncontrollably to the port and you've no height left in which to recover. Ease onto the ground at about 135kph."
Tourqe is something I feel is missing in all planes in AH, specially the smaller planes with large engines such as the 109 and spits, LA's etc.
Also, the F4u was notorious for tourqe. In AH one can go from 0 - 100% + WEP right away and hardly feel any tourqe at all.
-
thrilla.....trying to learn the best way to fly the K4 now. Getting somewhere with that too. Have to be very picky on which fights you take if you wish to do well and survive.
Believe it or not my favorite 109 'was" the F. My favorite 190 is the A8.
flew the Jug for the last two years almost exclusively. The only LW aircraft the Jug couldn't out turn was the 109F (prolly the E also, but dint fly it enough to make a comparison)
Bozon.....leading edge slats did make a difference. Read an account written by a 109 Pilot that stated while he was getting a firing solution his leading edge slats deployed and forced his nose up causing him to lose his firing solution. Some went so far as ato tie them up so they wouldn't deploy. Also...gravity deployed them, they had to be checked by the ground crew before sorties to make sure they deployed evenly. One end could stick apparently causing the slat to deploy unevenly.
Also...109 flaps could be deployed around 500mph. Why not let them have that ability? Jugs and Ponies can be deployed at 425 so I see no viable reason that the 109s can't deploy theres, unless we want to handicap them purposely. I am not trying to create an "uber" plane here. Most of you know I fly just about anything in Aces High. I would just like to see the aircraft no matter from what side they flew have the capabilities they had in real life. This is a Sim.......hope it's not turning into a version of DOOM using spits and La7s as weapons choices.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Tourqe is something I feel is missing in all planes in AH, specially the smaller planes with large engines such as the 109 and spits, LA's etc.
Also, the F4u was notorious for tourqe. In AH one can go from 0 - 100% + WEP right away and hardly feel any tourqe at all.
If they introduced a true torque roll in here, 99% of you will die fairly frequently as you induce a spin at low alt.
-
no offence taken wilbuz.
I think you missread me a little. Probably almost all planes that had various flap position (unlike spits for example) could lower a little flaps over 200 mph without breaking anything. It was done, but very rarely (a little less rare on P38, pretty darn rare on P51 from what I know).
Why?
I think it relates to your comment about torque, as I feel the AH FM is perhaps too tolerant to stalls and spins. What I would not like to see is the P51 style:
1. pull out flaps
2. roll 90 degrees
3. pull hard on stick
check list before turning. The cost and risk in pulling out flaps is so low that I can't see how it was not the standard practice IRL.
Another thing to consider is that there is a difference between deploying the flaps at 250 mph 1G straight and level and deploying them at 250 mph and pulling 5G. The latter will put a lot more stress on them. This applies to all planes of course, including the 400 mph flap deployment in P51/47 for E bleed in high G turns.
Hajo, I think the statement about slats ruining fire solution was related to a slight un-even deployment that caused the nose to swing sideways.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Im not sure....
I'm not a good pilot but I've always flown 109s for years. It's hard to fight with 109s but then again it was always difficult. I've inquired about the slats when I tested the turn radiuses for the fighter planes and the answer I got was that the 109 is already heavily influenced by the slats. The turn radius I've tested out myself - and found not much difference from the previous versions.
The only 'problem' I see with 109s is that some people are claiming the speeds for some of them are off, and the flap deployment speeds are wrong. Other than that I can't see or feel what's so different about them in version 2.06.
...
They were always garbage trucks, always stiffens up at hard speeds, always horrible in maneuverability, always stalled/destabilized at the slightest stick pull, always had sucky ammo.... and yes, everything else handles better than 109s and 190s, with even P-47s flying circles around the thing.
But again, that's how it always was in AH. No change at all IMO.
It doesn't pull turns like Spits, nor can it follow even P-47s in a turn, as a matter of fact. It doesn't have bullshi* Hizookas nor easy-fire 50cals... it can't pop flaps out at 250mph and start outmaneuvering the first merge - which by the way, every US fighter at least more than twice the weight of 109s can pull off in a dime. All it can do is climb and accelerate.
It was always like that.
I have to disagree with your statement re the 109's always handeled this way.
In AHI the 109's could do a great manuver that IIRC they were capable of in real life. Under certain circumstances and with your speed within certain high and low limits you could do a snap turn that left allied planes in the dust. You could nearly reverse direction within the length of the 109. I used that manuver many times when someone was on my 6 and closing. It worked and worked great! Got me outa some bad situations. Although sometimes I did it wrong and BANG went down LOL. With AHII that ability disappeared TOTALLY! No matter how I tried the 109 would NOT do that manuver or some others it used to do. Now it just SEEMS to flounder around if you even THINK of starting that manuver. IMHO It went from a plane with hidden abilities that had to be worked at to find, and worked at to use properly. Abilities that made it the quick and nimble little fighter that had surprises as it was reported to be, into a null ability garbage truck.
IMHO the CG or something is just a hair off!!! The rudder and vator authority at all speeds SEEM reduced as well. The k4 and g14 are far worse handling then the g10 was. Not talking speed or guns. The handleing SEEMS to have changed. Manuvers that were possible gradually became NOT possible.
As to the weapons......... baaahhhh garbage now. 30mm tater gun on the g14 and k4 SEEM to have such a dispurtion you can have your site on a nme at under 200 yds and watch the shot go wide low left or high right or any number of directions but hit the nme plane. I fire only the cannon and not the mg's too!
Don't even THINK about HO'n with the k4. Waste of time. With the limited range and effectiveness of the 30mm your down before you can get in range. So you manuver for a better shot? hmmmm............ Deflection shots with the 30mm are iffy at best due to the dispurtion factor that SEEMS involved. You get the path lined up and then watch the shot go wide. Just missing the plane your firing at. Our it flys between your shots etc etc etc..........
The view IMHO has also gotten more restricted.
I've pretty well decided I WILL NOT particapte in TOD due to the LW planes and how they fly. ONE of the BIG reasons I left WB was the stupid rolling plane set and the LW planes the way they have em are a joke that can't seem to get out of their own way. IMHO AH is rapidly catching up to WB in that catagory. I find it hard to believe that the LW planes were THAT inferior to the allied planes when the allies worked sooo hard to beat em. The reports showing they needed to improve allied rides right up to 1945 to beat the LW say much. IMHO numbers and attrition played a very significant part in the defeat of the LW. Many of the allied planes were pre 1940 designs TOO.
Recently read a report on the g10 vs the p51d done by Brown and the now deceased Hana. Didn't see what had been done to the g10 to make it air worthy, but they reported in their testing that the g10 actually out turned the p51. The p51 was faster.
Was in Flight Journal ..........
http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/store/viewissue.asp?issueid=gerf
The article titled "Flying the 109" by Eric Brown and Mark Hanna.
Not saying the LW was superior but I am saying I don't believe the planes were as bad as they are portrayed in oh so many flight sims.
I also have trouble with the fact that the Spanish used it for sooooo long and it has been refered to so often as "the deadly 109". It has become gradually a very NON-competitive airplane over the introduction of AHII and the patchs applied. Each time something SEEMED to change just slightly and the LW planes SEEMED to handle worse and worse OR some of the allied planes got better. Thinkin a number somewhere got changes a digit or something.
This is not my sim and I'm not the one that has to be concerned about it's income or the path it takes.
Since the last patch IMHO the LW planes are ..... well ............ But what do I know........................
Never mind................
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
... You get someone stuck on you in a 190 and you are screwed. Unless they are a complete newb and dont know how to use a throtle. Flying them is like punishing yourself.
Yep... although I'm a longtime beginner in this game, the few times I get people to overshoot AND kill them, it's usually someone I've never heard of. Otherwise, I know I'm screwed most of the time someone's back there. I feel bad for the other guy sometimes when I'm trying to jink as the airspeed drops... it must look like I'm stick stirring but I'm actually trying to fight the wing drops.
I agree with you about the C205 Gatt, if it weren't for the instability it would be a very nice ride. It's always needed so much attention from the rudder that it's tiring for me to fly, especially with a twisty stick.
-
The TOD will be a major success because HT has drones to fly the LW iron.
That's what players want anyway, a seal clubbing.
OTOH if the game was early war and the LW as good as it was in reality there'd be no problem. The late war setup of AH portrays a situation where the Luftwaffe had already suffered for years from lack of resources being the losing side of the war.
Well, and the russian planes are obviously overmodeled. That's natural if they believed the 'official' russian test results. When you see reports that indicate good land manouverability to a battleship, you might want to check your sources. :lol
The Soviets were infamous for faking reports just to please the party and keep from being sent to gulags. The soviet pilots reported so many kills that the entire FAF should have been shot down twice during the wars.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Tourqe is something I feel is missing in all planes in AH, specially the smaller planes with large engines such as the 109 and spits, LA's etc.
Also, the F4u was notorious for tourqe. In AH one can go from 0 - 100% + WEP right away and hardly feel any tourqe at all.
I don't think torque is badly modelled but I thing the engine accelerate too slowly.
Any one have the time needed from any engine to go from idle to full power ?
so ca can compare with AH ?
-
Originally posted by mauser
(Snip) about the C205 ...., if it weren't for the instability it would be a very nice ride. It's always needed so much attention from the rudder that it's tiring for me to fly, especially with a twisty stick.
Hajo,
I know the following its partially off topic, I apologize.
Mauser,
hats off if your able to be effective with a "twisty stick driven C.205". The ball in the 205 goes from one side to another like in a flipper game. If you hit auto-level-pilot at medium speeds your wings keep oscillating for a couple of seconds. Moreover, your head shakes much more than in other fighters during combat manoeuvers and thats bad for aiming. If you change the 205 for a Pony or a Jug you feel like to be on rails, no less. Could it be *so* different? I really doubt.
As far as the 109/190 are concerned I stand on my positions. The real competitive 109 (in the late war Main Arcade as a whole, not only in furballs) was the G-10. The last patch castrated the late war set with the G-14 and the 30mm K-4. I like to have more competitive aircraft in the arena like the new Spits, I dont like to loose something on my side with little or no reason.
I'm not asking for higher ATA K-4, or later 190D, or very rare MW 190A-8. I'm simply asking to have back what we had for years and after that, a general stability revision of the FM of the 109G-K, C.205 and 190A plane set. I can stand being outnumbered 3:1 during a Scenario but not to be flying very good aircraft modeled in this way.
-
Lets see what Real LW Ammo can do at B17s, after, imagine what can do
to any fighter and then, lets talk about lethality @ AHII.
ps (i had post it before some years, but i post it again for the new ones
who have a need to know what these men had to face up there)
Enjoy it....
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/contents.htm
-
That being said, the 109 are extremely unstable at slow speeds relative to some other planes. The P51 and La7 stall increadibly gently though I recall they were notorious in that respect. THAT aspect should be looked in to.
Exactly my point as well!
-
109's are unstable as hell but the 190's, atleast IMO are even more unstable. Something else the 190's suffer from is nose bounce way beyond anything imaginable which make them more or less impossible to aim with.
While I know my stick plays a part in those nose bounces the bounces are FAR less prone to happen in any of the Allied Rides, as have been sateted before, flying a Jug or a Pony or a HOG (C-hog especially) is like flying on rails, point and click.
-
Yup, the 109's suck. My main ride is the K4, and yes, it sucks - especially when just about every target is a sissyfire or LA. That being said, the K4 sucks less than the pilots of the sissyfires and LA's, so the K4 is perfectly viable in the MA --- if you're a good stick, and (most importantly) a good shot. You can still fight aggressively in a K4 and live in the MA, you just have to pay attention, pick your spots, and be good at it. I'm 309:60 in the K4 so far this camp, and I'm anything but timid and never vulch. Go figure.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
Yup, the 109's suck. My main ride is the K4, and yes, it sucks - especially when just about every target is a sissyfire or LA. That being said, the K4 sucks less than the pilots of the sissyfires and LA's, so the K4 is perfectly viable in the MA --- if you're a good stick, and (most importantly) a good shot. You can still fight aggressively in a K4 and live in the MA, you just have to pay attention, pick your spots, and be good at it. I'm 309:60 in the K4 so far this camp, and I'm anything but timid and never vulch. Go figure.
Very nice! Yes, I was watching you yesterday, never saw you above 10k and you were usually on the deck, you were a lil' whirling dervish.
Zazen
-
Wetrat :)
nice post and good stats as well, WTG!
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
The TOD will be a major success because HT has drones to fly the LW iron.
That's what players want anyway, a seal clubbing.
OTOH if the game was early war and the LW as good as it was in reality there'd be no problem. The late war setup of AH portrays a situation where the Luftwaffe had already suffered for years from lack of resources being the losing side of the war.
Well, and the russian planes are obviously overmodeled. That's natural if they believed the 'official' russian test results. When you see reports that indicate good land manouverability to a battleship, you might want to check your sources. :lol
The Soviets were infamous for faking reports just to please the party and keep from being sent to gulags. The soviet pilots reported so many kills that the entire FAF should have been shot down twice during the wars.
Well, if TOD has drones made of the existing LW iron, then there may be a lot of interest by some. The LW drones should be easy pickings.
But shooting drones is for box games. Most people in the Main Arcade don't fly like AI drones, nor do they fly as well as AI drones.
The big advantage to AI drones is gunnery practice, which is sorely needed in this game. The existing drones are not much better than nothing. Better yes, just not much better.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
If they introduced a true torque roll in here, 99% of you will die fairly frequently as you induce a spin at low alt.
I know this isn't directly related to what Bodhi said, but I remember early in the AH beta how difficult it was to take off. It was a real challenge NOT to ground loop the 109G-10 on takeoff, but I just kept going at it until it wasn't so bad. That was changed after a little while, I believe it was a change in the gear strut stiffness or damping but I'm not sure.
About keeping the ball centered in the C.205 - yes, it's like playing "pong" on your instrument panel. The 109 seems to be almost as bad for me, I'm way too used to flying the 190 which doesn't require as much rudder attention until the wings try to go the other way. In any case, it's especially hard to do really low speed moves for a neophyte like me when I'm busy trying to roll the throttle smoothly back and forth and fight the ball. Only way I can "fly" without feeling like I'm constantly fighting the plane is if I play conservative.
-
I read through some of the posts just now (didn't before), and wtf are you people talking about.. K4 is worse than the G10? Like hell it is... it's the exact same as the G10. You can't take 20mm's or gondies in a K4... SO WHAT? What the hell were you doing taking 20mm's or gondolas in a G10 anyway?! 1x20mm is just retarded in a G10 (it was always a snapshot ride... have fun snapshotting with a single LW 20), and slinging gondies on a plane that already handles like a bus is just idiotic. Neuters climb rate/acceleration... the only things the G10 did well!
The K4 sucks, the G10 sucked. Visibility in the K4 sucks, visibility in the G10 sucked. If you suck you can't hit a damn thing with 30's in a K4, if you suck you couldn't hit a damn thing with 30's in a G10. Big changes, eh?! Personally, I don't find the visibility in the K4 all that bad (set your views, people). Sure, you can't see a damn thing below the nose, but I almost never shoot at stuff below the nose anyhow. Lead turns, people - put the plane in that little triangle window up front (roll a 109, you'll see the ones I mean) and blow em up when they cross into your sights. Easy.
I've been considering posting some 30mm gunnery films in the Training forums, and I think I'll actually do it now. It isn't all that hard once you get the hang of it, but you can't have the same approach as you would with 50cals or hispanos. There's a whole different set of rules.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi If they introduced a true torque roll in here, 99% of you will die fairly frequently as you induce a spin at low alt.
Don't agree nor do I think you are right.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
I read through some of the posts just now (didn't before), and wtf are you people talking about.. K4 is worse than the G10? Like hell it is... it's the exact same as the G10. You can't take 20mm's or gondies in a K4... SO WHAT? What the hell were you doing taking 20mm's or gondolas in a G10 anyway?!
I've been considering posting some 30mm gunnery films in the Training forums, and I think I'll actually do it now. It isn't all that hard once you get the hang of it, but you can't have the same approach as you would with 50cals or hispanos. There's a whole different set of rules.
The new 109s compress easier than the 2.5 version 109s. That is a big factor. I just can't believe how stiff they get at low speeds and how they lock up. I loved the old 109F4, but now the thing is a pig, with or without gondies. I keep compressing in it. Damn ground kills you more than bogeys. And you dive on a bogey and the thing gets so stiff, you can't pull off your shot. By 350 mph, it is getting stiff, by 400mph, forget it.
As far as gondolas go, the firepower of the G10 with gondies smacked up a buff really fast. And made for nasty snap shots, if the 30's didn't get the bogey the 20s tore chunks off him.
G10 was never a turn fighter, but it could get you out of trouble until the Cavalry arrived.
Gondies are like putting the extra 30mms on the 190A8. Why not? The thing turns like a bus anyways, and the A8 is too slow to run if you let it get slow. So you just use that massive firepower to blast anything in front of your guns, stay fast, and get out of Dodge.
It is really amazing that the Germans, who could build an operational jet fighter, an operational jet bomber, an operational rocket plane, and operational rockets V1/V2, and deploy these in combat. They could do all that, yet they couldn't build a decent propeller driven fighter.
In spite of not being able to build a decent propeller driven fighter aircraft, their pilots scored impressive kill streaks with those planes.
We should be greatful that the Germans couldn't engineer aircraft. If they could have produced an airplane that could compete with a Spit or and LA, they may have won the war.
The real solution, is to get off the BBS and spend time learning a Spit16 or and LA7. Those things keep getting better and better.
I heard that in version 2.9 we are going to get a Spit 11 that will fly faster than a Tempest, and outturn a Zeke. And it won't be perked either !!:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
I dont know what game you played Wetrat, but the 1x20mm G-10, despite unstable, was an excellent e-fighter and the 3x20mm was an excellent buff hunter and hit&climb fighter. I can speak only for me and some of my squaddies but numbers are (better: were) there. Since the last patch, 109s are not only the usual unstable pigs (compared to allied fighters), but they have lost their teeth as well.
-
Originally posted by gatt
Since the last patch, 109s are not only the usual unstable pigs (compared to allied fighters), but they have lost their teeth as well.
Wrong. I'm slaughtering baby seals just the same as always. Unless buff hunting (ZzZzZzZzZZ no thanks), the G10/K4 has ALWAYS been most effective with 30mm in the hands of a decent stick with good gunnery. Think you'd catch Fester/Nath/Stang/me/ with 20mm's in a G10 too often back in the day? I highly doubt it. The G10/K4 has only "lost its teeth" if you never learned how to fly it properly in the first place. End of story.
Perhaps the 109F/G2/G6(g6 always sucked...) "lost their teeth," but I haven't said anything about them up until now. For a while in AH1 the G2 was my #1 ride, and it's never been as good in AH2 as it was back then. That didn't change with any patch.
-
Wetrat is 100% correct of course. The K-4 is identical to the old G-10 except for the weapons. Performance is identical, its the relative performance of its opponents that have changed. Like he said, the 109's always sucked just as much as they do now, what has changed is not them, before you were fighting Spit V's and now you are fighting Spit VIII/XVI's. The performance gap to the 109's opponents has closed (dissapeared) and therefore its relative performance HAS changed even though its absolute performance numbers have not.
-
I've been considering posting some 30mm gunnery films in the Training forums,
That would be great. Ive asked somebody...in this thread even...to send me a film of that, yet to get it :( dang you Wil, wont share the secret with me.:lol
-
Originally posted by Grits
Wetrat is 100% correct of course. The K-4 is identical to the old G-10 except for the weapons.
I must disagree Grits... Again the issue goes back to "the numbers line up but everything ELSE is hosed".
A K4 can't fly in anything other than level flight without popping slats. It can't even loop properly anymore (HIGHLY unstable when trying to). Compared to the G10 we used to have, DESPITE having the same top speed and climb rate, the REST of the flight envelope got the shaft. It cannot flat turn anymore. It cannot dive anymore (compresses far too easily, as was mentioned). It cannot ROLL anymore (you even found some of the 109s roll as much as a second slower than they used to).
All in all the flight model for all 109s has turned to mush. Unstable mush, but mush nonetheless. I've sworn off 109s for the time being.
-
K4 feels exactly the same to me as the G10 did. You could see a little better out of the G10 though, but I've gotten used to the new K4's cockpit, so it's irrelevant now.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
Wrong. I'm slaughtering baby seals just the same as always. Unless buff hunting (ZzZzZzZzZZ no thanks), the G10/K4 has ALWAYS been most effective with 30mm in the hands of a decent stick with good gunnery. Think you'd catch Fester/Nath/Stang/me/ with 20mm's in a G10 too often back in the day? I highly doubt it. The G10/K4 has only "lost its teeth" if you never learned how to fly it properly in the first place. End of story.
Perhaps the 109F/G2/G6(g6 always sucked...) "lost their teeth," but I haven't said anything about them up until now. For a while in AH1 the G2 was my #1 ride, and it's never been as good in AH2 as it was back then. That didn't change with any patch.
Hmmmm so you are a 733t stick ?
-
For those claiming the 109s have not change one little bit?
I find myself wondering just how hard you push the 109 when you fly it?
I flew them pretty much my entire time in AHI and AHII. Loved em. Yes Difficult to fly but........... I pushed the 109 hard as I could nearly every hop. Have gotten in some great fights and even manage to survive 1 or 2.
109's can do some interesting things when pushed or perhaps a better way of saying it is they used to ............
Huge change came about when we went from AHI to AHII, do you agree? or disagree?
Last patch applied and I tried flyin the same as I always fly and plane would not preform as it DID.
The F4 lost it's turn AND it's teeth. Even heard some say the single 20 acts more like a 50cal? The G14 is slow and twitchy and little better then the old G6. The K4 is twitchy and seems abit more twitchy then the G10 when pushed to the limit.
I flew the G10 with the 20mm nose and gonds, but from time to time I would try just the 20mm nose or just the 30mm nose.
IMHO the CG or something is off just a little. The 109k4 is NOT a g10 IMHO. Thay are NOT the same. Something is different. Handling is DIFFERENT!
I said as much earlier in this post. And I just said alot of the same stuff.
-
Toldja it was always like that.
If anything changed between AH1 and AH2, the 109s and some other planes gained considerably severe destabilization when approaching stall envelope - which has been discussed.
Although HTC's official response is "there are no changes in the FM", we all know how these 'official responses' are worded. For instance, Pyro commented the gunnery modelling didn't change. People were swearing that something changed in AH2beta.... then Pyro the sly devil added that it was the 'hit detetction resolution' that changed.
Most people guess (well, at least I do) that such changes might be present, but neither confirmed nor verified for various reasons. Yes, the "FM" didn't change, but something else that works in cohesion with the basic FM, might have.
Much simularly, many experienced 190 pilots (and unexperienced pilots like me :p ) claimed that the planes became slightly more generous in near-stall maneuvering - such was the consensus and quite difficult to just stamp it under the placebo envelope. Personally, my opinion is that the 190 vertical maneuvering is now much easier, which I can often push the plane upto vertical 0mph and stall out gently, and then nose down. In previous versions, this was dangerous - at least for me.
Therefore, it is possible there were also slight changes to the 109 in some way, and some people might feel it. However, the problems which most of the people are complaining about here, are problems that always existed with the 109s rather than something new. Virtually every US plane, every British plane maneuvers better than 109s and 190s, and that's a given fact in AH.
-
change or not. the 190s are literally junk. You cant dog fight in them. Not like you can dog fight in a P51. The two compared.... The P51 may as well be a zeek. Aint no way you're going to win any kinda stall fight against a P51 in a 190.. Not in AH. The P51 got a boost of balls when AH2 came along. A fighter that I spent a ton of time in turn fighting in AH1, suddenly felt like it grew even bigger balls in the turn fight world when AH2 beta came along. I dont care what anyone says, it changed when AH2 came out... And the 190s felt like they just completely had them cut off.
I really love reading that irl the A8 was comparable to the P47's of its day. Oh really? The A8 in AH to the P47 in AH is what a School bus is to a Viper today.
I also love reading that irl the A8 was the best A variant. When in AH is is the absolute worst.
Sad...
Also, with a few select people handing out historical evidence showing how flaps could be deployed at much higher speeds than they currently can be deployed at in AH... And they're still nerffed.
PLEASE GOD FIX THE 109 FLAPS ALREADY.
-
Originally posted by AKFokerFoder+
I was flying the 109F4 and G6 a lot in version 2.5, I am now looking for a new ride. I like the Spit16, and my old buddy the 190A8. The A8 is a piece of kee rap, but it dives nice, shoots welll, and anything if front of your guns dies :)
The front views of the are porked in Ver 2.6; get used to it.
The 109F4 had it’s teeth pulled out; get used to it.
The G6 lost it’s punch; get used to it.
The G10 is dead; get used to it.
The 14 is the old G6, or so we are told, the old G6 was a pretty nice ride, the new 14 compresses just to spite you. And did I mention that the front view sucks?
The K4 has just the few rounds of 30mm; doesn’t climb like a G10, compresses just to spite you.
The compression on the new 109 is much worse than the old 109s, it starts sooner, and locks you up into a tough to get out of dive, I auger too much in it.
As for flaps in the Luft Wobble rides, this has been hashed over too many times. In spite of strong evidence that the flaps could deploy at higher speed in the 109s and 190’s it ain’t a gonna change; get used to it.
HT’s idea of realistic is that we put a fat bunch of bars in front of you that you can’t look around. In real life, a pilot can make small subconscious movements of his head to look around the struts in the cockpit. Exactly like you look around the struts in you car without really thinking about it. This has normally been modeled in flight sims by making the bars a bit smaller than it real life. A virtual world way of trying to make the experience more like what you would have in real life. In AH2 it is like the pilots head is rooted in cement in each view, and can only be moved slowly with the arrow or page up/down keys.
The 190s in this game are a joke. The Dora had a massively powerful engine with 2,240 hp, and a normal fully loaded weight of 9414 lbs. The LA7 had a 1,840 hp engine at 7308 lbs.
This gives the Dora a Hp/Wt ratio of about 95% of the Lavotchkin 7. Yet look at the acceleration difference. Both planes had almost identical wing areas, 18.3 sq meters for the Dora, and 17.5 sq meters for the LA7. The LA7 had significantly better wing loading, of 194 kg/sq meter, than the Dora’s 258 kg/sq meter. I could be wrong here, but with all that wing and drag, the LA7 shouldn’t accelerate much faster than a Dora, given the almost identical hp/wt ratio. The LA will of course out turn the Dora quite easily given the wing loading.
Yet we see the following acceleration rates from the Dora and the LA7 Netaces Accleration Comparison Page (http://www.netaces.org/ahplanes/comparisons/acceloverview.htm#title) That the Dora’s acceleration is abysmal compared to the LA7.
The LW rides in LA's High suck; get used to it, because it won't change. And I predicte will be one of the reasons that TOD will be a big flop.
Take a Spit or a LA7. Spitfires and LA’s flew close to 40% of the sorties in the Main Arcade last month. And there is a reason.
dead on target
-
You guys claiming wild changes in plane behaviour with each patch know that HT is sitting in the office reading this after a hard day of coading and laughing at you right?
-
Grits:
Although HTC's official response is "there are no changes in the FM", we all know how these 'official responses' are worded. For instance, Pyro commented the gunnery modelling didn't change. People were swearing that something changed in AH2beta.... then Pyro the sly devil added that it was the 'hit detetction resolution' that changed.
There have been changes. As I said, not changes to the top speed and climb rate, but to every other aspect of flight in these planes.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
There have been changes. As I said, not changes to the top speed and climb rate, but to every other aspect of flight in these planes.
I dont feel anything different, and never have since AH2 went live. In addition I found no testable differences. Imaginary as far as I am concerned.
-
The 109k is a difficult plane for good shooters.
I persist not to understand spits were added and G10 subtracted !? :rolleyes: :mad:
-
There have been changes. As I said, not changes to the top speed and climb rate, but to every other aspect of flight in these planes.
So sure of it?
In the case of the 190s, virtually every pilot who made themselves known by being 190 experts, who were still playing AH2, since my first arrival in AH1.05, has agreed that the handling is somewhat more gentle than it was - and yet, still it remains to be seen, yet to be proved.
I was the first one to bring up the 109 destabilization issues in the a/v forums. I am very convinced that things have been changed - and yet, still I cannot exert this opinion as an absolute because of the obvious difficulties in proving a "feel" as an objective factor.
The closest I could come to proving the above two issues as solid fact, was by using the stall-limiter angle setting as a method of measuring the difficulty level required for a pilot to push his plane to its absolute limits of turn maneuvering - and still I find it difficult to pursuade people who remain skeptical with that fact alone.
In the above two issues, we at least had some sort of "LW consensus" going on. However, this thread clearly shows that such consensus doesn't exist in regards to this particular issue: 109s didn't change, or rather, opinions are split.
So I wouldn't be too sure in basing an opinion as an immovable fact - because like Grits said, when the man shows up and clarifies it one way or another, one could be in heaps of embarassment or loss of credibility.
There could be a multitude of reasons in why some people can't maneuver 109s like they used to.
For one thing, the MA competition has grown tougher. The abundant Spit8s Spit16s are much more powerful competiton than the usual Spit9s or Spit5s we used to fight.... the margin of time available each pilot has to finish a 1vs1 engagement in the way he wants it, is considerably shorter than it was - in which condition it is not strange to expect a pilot to behave more hastily and sloppily.... or, it is entirely possible the self-confident 'vets' we have gathered in this thread are much too overconfident in what they can do.... or they might be basing their facts upon one or two engagements which they particularly remember as being unsatisfactory - it is pretty common fact that people exaggerate the things they hate.... and on and on, yadayada.
So let's try not to settle anything as a given fact.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
Wrong. I'm slaughtering baby seals just the same as always. Unless buff hunting (ZzZzZzZzZZ no thanks), the G10/K4 has ALWAYS been most effective with 30mm in the hands of a decent stick with good gunnery. Think you'd catch Fester/Nath/Stang/me/ with 20mm's in a G10 too often back in the day? I highly doubt it. The G10/K4 has only "lost its teeth" if you never learned how to fly it properly in the first place. End of story.
Perhaps the 109F/G2/G6(g6 always sucked...) "lost their teeth," but I haven't said anything about them up until now. For a while in AH1 the G2 was my #1 ride, and it's never been as good in AH2 as it was back then. That didn't change with any patch.
Perhaps, I should have said: their *long* teeth. I dont care what others do in the Main and how, till they try to teach others how to play, that is. I for one never loved the 30mm G-10. I flew only 1x20mm and 3x20mm 109G-10s during the last TOD's. Perhaps, who knows, you have never learned to kill with the single 20mm. Its a game, so its just a matter of taste.
BTW, I dont think the FM changed from the G-10 to the K-4. IMO, 109s, 205 and 190As have always been too unstable, compared to Ponies, Jugs etc.etc. And yes I agree, if you dont like buff hunting you cannot appreciate how good was the 3x20mm G-10. In the hands of a decent stick, that is.
-
"then Pyro the sly devil added that it was the 'hit detetction resolution' that changed. "
Now that I think of it, that is just how it seems. Sometimes the shots seem to almost as they go through the enemy but no hit flashes. I think this is a change to the better.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
. The P51 got a boost of balls when AH2 came along. .
I really love reading that irl the A8 was comparable to the P47's of its day. Oh really? The A8 in AH to the P47 in AH is what a School bus is to a Viper today.
.
The only way i undestand this bias is cuz the game makes most of revenue on Norh American market , soo the main customer in satisfied. There's no reason for german planes to fly better .
-
Originally posted by Grits
I dont feel anything different, and never have since AH2 went live. In addition I found no testable differences. Imaginary as far as I am concerned.
Then IMHO you never pushed the 109 to it's limit. I have said before there was a HUGH change from AHI to AHII.
There WAS a snap turn as well as some other moves you could do in the 109s in AHI that are no longer doable in AHII.
I KNOW because I tried several of those moves the 1st day AHII came out and the plane wallowed and went into an unstable dive. or just lost control and flopped around! Speed you try it don't matter. Can't do em in AHII. Got shot down too!
Yes you can still zoom and boom and stay fast and shoot, but that's about it.
Where you could turn some and do quick nimble moves before now you just wallow and flop.
-
I now you lw guys like to complain but just look at the k/d rates d-9 is 1.5 and K-4 is 1.4 both these numbers beat all spits, p47's, p-38's, f6f, f4u's not perked, hurries, yakes, la's and p-51's so I dont see why your complaining.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Then IMHO you never pushed the 109 to it's limit. I have said before there was a HUGH change from AHI to AHII.
There WAS a snap turn as well as some other moves you could do in the 109s in AHI that are no longer doable in AHII.
I KNOW because I tried several of those moves the 1st day AHII came out and the plane wallowed and went into an unstable dive. or just lost control and flopped around! Speed you try it don't matter. Can't do em in AHII. Got shot down too!
Yes you can still zoom and boom and stay fast and shoot, but that's about it.
Where you could turn some and do quick nimble moves before now you just wallow and flop.
you will never convince them, they are all knowing and their word is law. the spit is the be all, end all. in fact if they brought the spit to bear today it would defeat even the mighty F22 while it's driver was applying makeup at 390mph in the diamond dave lane. the only reason they don't because they are far too modest to embarass the USAF.
-
Originally posted by monteini
I now you lw guys like to complain but just look at the k/d rates d-9 is 1.5 and K-4 is 1.4 both these numbers beat all spits, p47's, p-38's, f6f, f4u's not perked, hurries, yakes, la's and p-51's so I dont see why your complaining.
If something is modeled wrong then it should be fixed oh smart one. Such as the flaps on the 109s.
-
KillNu I haven't forgotten about the films. I am waiting for a Sidewinder Precission Pro 2 stick to arrive before I can post some films for ya. I can't aim with the Cougar at the moment, can't make small let alone micro adjustments.
Give me a few more days to get the stick and get used to it and I will hopefully have some tater films ready!
-
Originally posted by monteini
I now you lw guys like to complain but just look at the k/d rates d-9 is 1.5 and K-4 is 1.4 both these numbers beat all spits, p47's, p-38's, f6f, f4u's not perked, hurries, yakes, la's and p-51's so I dont see why your complaining.
K/D doesn't mean jack sh** when messuring plane performance. Biggest reason the LW birds have better K/D is that they are MOSTLY flown by AH vets.
Most n00bs fly allied.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
K/D doesn't mean jack sh** when messuring plane performance. Biggest reason the LW birds have better K/D is that they are MOSTLY flown by AH vets.
Most n00bs fly allied.
Now that I have dropped the 109s, I've been flying the LA7 a bit, and I think it has real potential. It makes even a dweeb like me look good. :p
But the Spit16 may be the best choice?
-
I said before in the A&V forum:
I flew the K4 quite a bit in the last week and came to the conclusion that it performs less then the G10. High speed handling hasn't changed much but it seems as if its turn rate at medium and low speeds has decreased (i can't measure it but feel it when flat turning la's and yak's now in K4 compared to G10 before). It decelerates accelerates less then before (takes longer, more overshoots against other planes now). The most noticeable change is its stall fight performance. It is "less stable" in roll around stall and it doesn't wing over as easy as before (even with flaps).
In total it simply feels as if the plane is heavier then before, maybe even a shift in CG.
-
Originally posted by Grits
Wetrat is 100% correct of course. The K-4 is identical to the old G-10 except for the weapons. Performance is identical, its the relative performance of its opponents that have changed. Like he said, the 109's always sucked just as much as they do now, what has changed is not them, before you were fighting Spit V's and now you are fighting Spit VIII/XVI's. The performance gap to the 109's opponents has closed (dissapeared) and therefore its relative performance HAS changed even though its absolute performance numbers have not.
Spot on.
Unless you choose to disbelieve HT's post stating that the G10/K4 FM is IDENTICAL, nothing changed apart from armament.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Then IMHO you never pushed the 109 to it's limit. I have said before there was a HUGH change from AHI to AHII.
I stallfight Spits and Hurricanes with the G-10/K-4, does that count as "pushing" them? I furball EVERYTHING I fly on the deck, including 109's and 190's.
If you reread my post i said "since AH2", clearly every plane changed with the transition from AH1. I am responding to those that say every time we get a patch that fixes a bug with how TREES[/b] are shown, they claim the 109's and 190's get worse, its pure delusional fantasy.
Originally posted by storch
you will never convince them, they are all knowing and their word is law. the spit is the be all, end all. in fact if they brought the spit to bear today it would defeat even the mighty F22 while it's driver was applying makeup at 390mph in the diamond dave lane. the only reason they don't because they are far too modest to embarass the USAF.
A couple things Storch:
1. I never said the 109's and 190's are CORRECT, I only disagree (and think I have proved) that they have not changed SINCE the move to AH2. I think there are several areas that the LW rides could be made better (most clearly the 109 flap deployment speeds are too low).
2. Instead of being a snide chitsstirrer making smartarse remarks about me, why dont you get off your duff and find some way to prove that the planes in question and prove they HAVE[/b] changed? I'll tell you why, you know you cant do it because you know I am correct, yet this is too good of an opportunity for you to vent your same old tired rant about conspiracy's against the LW.
Until then, you should put up or shut up.
-
Kev, it's not a matter of believing in HT. HT is never untruthful. However, some folks don't realize just how complex even simple programs can be. This is far from a simple program.
HT assures us "it's the same" but we know for a fact it's not. He's probably thinking that the dataset for "plane x" (in this case the g10) is the same as the dataset for "plane y" (in this case the k4), and they are, but what he's not looking at is the code change where the airflow over the wings at point z is not totally fubard, or the point where G spikes occur at 2 Gs when they ought to only occur at 6 Gs, or the part of the code that says "only at this speed will this event happen" and the speed is 10x faster than it ought to be, or fill in the blank here.
It's different. It's just not an obvious thing to say "why" it's different. Discounting the obvious is only going to delay fixing the problem. It obviously changed, and we the players have no idea how its coded, so htc the coders have to do it all on their end. We need to let them know that something is wrong, so that they can plan to eventually go through thousands of lines of code and say "Hey, you know what? That decimal is in the wrong place". And debugging code is neither easy for quick. You saying nothing is wrong will only make htc not bother looking for the hidden problem.
-
Understood Krusty -
But if the FMs are the same, then it must be something globaly that has changed, i.e. it affects all planes.
Its not as though the actually shape of the model influences the performance. You could put a 100ft sail on a Zeke model and with the identical FM it would perform the same as the standard model.
In which case if the FM didn't change, it has to be something globally that affects all planes. (maybe some more than others).
But I have to agree with Grits and others who have tried both out (k4/G10).
They say they are identical, its not they got worse, but the performance gap narrowed between them and others.
-
Again we have no way of knowing what logic path the data takes. It might have modules associated with each plane, it might have all the data integrated, with long sets of data and information all in one central location, so that everything from G loading to acceleration to drag in high speed dives is all separate for each aircraft, and whenever you take a plane all of this is loaded at once.
So we don't know anything about how it works, but it could be that the problem data is specific to a plane or plane type (i.e. all 109s -- example: all 109s had roll related changes in 2.06, rolling much slower at low speeds. That could be an overall code module that applies to all 109s, or it could be separate info in each and every 109, who knows?)
-
Looked back though latest two patches notes, I see nothing that says changes were made to 109 roll rates.
Only mention is a cosmetic change to 190E slats.
-
LW = fodder for any US plane with a descent stick, just slow down a lil and don't overshoot and there easy to kill.... I fly them every now and then just to feel how crappy they feel, there fast and climb nice, but gun ballistics suck so bad and once they get under 200mph your toast, IMHO there only good for porking and buff hunting, maybe b n z if your a good snapshot artist.... what i dont understand is how there can be that big of a differance between the US/British cannons / MG's than the LW planes, there 20 and 30mm rounds are like throwing rocks at the other plane, and the MG's are useless, and the damage is way lower than the US / British guns and cannons... its like a LW 30mm has the effect of a 20mm hispano, and the 20mm LW rounds are like .50 cals from US planes.... the LA7's savak 20mm's seem to have way better ballistics and punch than the LW's as well and I know that can't be right, can it ?..... I fly against allot of LW planes and they really should be fixed, many many US pilots said that the 109 and 190 were by far the best planes they have seen and in this game IMHO they are crap
-
My big b**** is with the cockpit views, the f4 is still ok, tho i I still miss the gondi option for furballs.
I used to fly the g2 a lot and I still have to say that low speed handling seems worse, view related?, dunno..bottom line is that it's no fun to fly any longer.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Iceman24
LW = fodder for any US plane with a descent stick, just slow down a lil and don't overshoot and there easy to kill.... I fly them every now and then just to feel how crappy they feel, there fast and climb nice, but gun ballistics suck so bad and once they get under 200mph your toast, IMHO there only good for porking and buff hunting, maybe b n z if your a good snapshot artist.... what i dont understand is how there can be that big of a differance between the US/British cannons / MG's than the LW planes, there 20 and 30mm rounds are like throwing rocks at the other plane, and the MG's are useless, and the damage is way lower than the US / British guns and cannons... its like a LW 30mm has the effect of a 20mm hispano, and the 20mm LW rounds are like .50 cals from US planes.... the LA7's savak 20mm's seem to have way better ballistics and punch than the LW's as well and I know that can't be right, can it ?..... I fly against allot of LW planes and they really should be fixed, many many US pilots said that the 109 and 190 were by far the best planes they have seen and in this game IMHO they are crap
LW planes and ballistics are horribly neutered here and Commie planes are based on kremlin specs
-
LW planes and ballistics are horribly neutered here and Commie planes are based on kremlin specs
Yeah I understand there may be a little differance, but nothing like it is now, no major gripe on my part cause I don't fly them allot, but for the guys that do it would be nice to be able to hit something... I made a post a few weeks back saying I was flying a 262 and hit a spit with 3 ea 30mm rounds in the same wing, nuthing happened except an aleron loss, to me it would seem 1 should be enough to take out just about anything
-
Who care of the FM ?
If you love a plane just fly it and shut up.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Who care of the FM ?
If you love a plane just fly it and shut up.
It's not as easy as that Straffo.
Imagine the outrage if the Pony was porked.
It sucks to love and plane which was historicaly good and even great when it sucks in AH, takes away the fun of flying it.
-
You know I'm an equal flying disaster whatever plane I'm in and I try to fly them all regardless of their origin/
I myself want the the planes be the more accurate possible as before being a "fighter" pilot I'm an aviation lover, and I don't think this kind of discussion can lead anywhere.
I'm also guily of whining for things I feel don't right in AH (who said fuel multiplier ?:p) but for now this as to stop being a whine fest and start again to be constructive ,backed by verifiable ,accurate and honest facts.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
My big b**** is with the cockpit views, the f4 is still ok, tho i I still miss the gondi option for furballs.
With the punch of the LW cannons, now that you only have one gun, you are probably better off flying a Yak, not as much gas, but about the same ammo, better hitting power, and somewhat similar performance. A lot less compression, and much better views.
Originally posted by Shamus
I used to fly the g2 a lot and I still have to say that low speed handling seems worse, view related?,
The views may be what is making the FM seem so different. When you fly a plane a lot, you get a feel for what is should do. And the new 109s sure “feel” different. And that may be the views, but I think part of it is compression. It just seems to be less responsive at medium to high speeds than it used to. And once it locks up in compression, it seems to take longer to get response back (that is lower speeds)
Originally posted by Shamus
dunno..bottom line is that it's no fun to fly any longer.
shamus
I think you have nailed the problem down perfectly with that statement. I want a fun aircraft to fly. And the 109F4 was fun, it was competitive in a turn fight. That is, it could keep you alive for long enough for either:
A. someone to shoot the bogey off your six, or
B. the bogey to realize you aren’t an easy kill and break off, or
C. for some bogey to cherry pick or HO you.
Which is all I can expect from a plane.
The new candidates for a fun plane do not include 109s.
I just can’t fly like some people can. I never have been able, nor will I ever be able to be, a top quality pilot. So I have to look to the ride to make up for my lack of skill. And I know I will get all the kee rap about it’s the pilot, not the plane. But being a skilled sim pilot is like being a skilled baseball player. Not all of us will make it into the major leagues.
-
crumpp has sent reams of documentation regarding the 190, to no (zero, zilch, nada, goose eggs) avail. all the LW is incorrectly modelled to a fair extent and will remain so. it would be bad business for htc to do so. the staus quo requires it to remain so. what would happen if the ponies and spits were dropping like flies every sortie (as they almost do now)? why do you think there are no sherman tanks in the game? the fact is that if there were shermans they would have to be so rediculously overmodelled that it would be a farce. kinda like how the LW rides work now except there would be people actually saying something about it. frankly I don't care if they ever "fix" it. I'm working on improving my skills in my favorite rides even though I start the race fettered.
-
In AW for years I prefered to fly the A8. Was difficult in Aces High and had wicked departure. Most of you that know me from Air warrior know this to be true. I flew the K4 frequently in AW also. We All know the FM in Air Warrior was....let me just say below par to be kind.
When I first came to Aces High I again flew the FW. Wow what a change...I was pleased with the roll rate and the speed....and also the high speed handling of the 190s.....very nice indeed. When the A5 came out it turned nicely....not on a dime but it was a great high speed turner. At high speeds in RL and in Aces High it could out turn a spit until the FW lost enough E that it's rate of turn would decrease to the point that if you were on someones 6 ya better break straight with good speed to extend.
I flew the 109s in Aces High also and after some getting used to they were a fine aircraft. I enjoyed flying them and imho they turned fairly well. When the earlier models came out they were not that far behind a spitfire of the same period. IMHO it stalls quicker now. Pushing the 109s envelope"can only be done for a short period of time at speeds near 250mph. At about 230mph it nears stall....keeping a wingup is your focus and if you're on someones six at that point you might think of getting your affairs in order. Because at that speed and condition (around 225 to 240) you're treading water trying to keep it upright and your opponent will just cruise around and pop you just about the time you've got the wings paralell to the ground.
Been flying Air Combat Sims a long time.....this is really the first time in Aces High when I've asked about comparing actual stats on a fighter (Total kills) during WW2 and question how it accumulated those kills with being a lackluster performer in many areas in our MA. No doubt it climbs well, I like the 30mms and my k/d is favorable even fighting on the deck in the K4. But if it dipped a wing no matter a what alt in WW2 like it did here. Methinks it would have been easy for allied aircraft to make the 109 and for that matter a 190 a non issue as an opponent.
Didn't mean to start a fight about these aircraft. HTC has done a great job with this sim. I just wanted to know how aircrafts with very fine records during the war did that flying the way they do in Aces High.
-
If you think wings dipping are only a problem for the LW planes, try flying a Tiff.
Notoriously bad for dipping the right wing in a med/slow turn, does the same pulling out of slowish dives, almost wants to roll on its back.
Straight from the horse mouth at HTC - There have been NO FM changes on the 190s/109s. (spoke to them today).
Not even the suggested 'they roll slower' opinions. NO FM changes at all.
-
See my previous comments about the complexity of the code. There have been changes, probably in other areas of code that affect these aircraft.
-
Kev.......not asking whether it has changed. Questioning if the FM of the LW rides matches the rides IRL. I don't really understand how the LW accomplished what they did, out numbered, in aircraft that clearly are not even close to the modeled Allied craft in Aces High. If the FM is ok.....then the LW Pilots were the best ever to put on a scarf and a pair of flying goggles. Akin to racing a greyhound with a beagle imho.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
See my previous comments about the complexity of the code. There have been changes, probably in other areas of code that affect these aircraft.
Any other changes would affect ALL aircraft not just the LW.
Only model changes.
i.e. If I take a F-15 model with an FM then swap the model for a Sopwith Camel all that changes is what it looks like, nothing else. It will still perform as an F-15.
Same thing for the G10/K4
All they swapped was the model, its doesn't affect how the plane flies, its a virtual plane flying in virtual air. Only an FM change alters the charecteristics.
You won't even believe guys who still have old installations when they tell you they are identical in performance.
Hajo - I was commenting on despite what HT has said many many many times recently, poeple keep on claiming that all the recent or even some earlier patches have altered the LW flight characteristics.
-
Originally posted by Grits
You guys claiming wild changes in plane behaviour with each patch know that HT is sitting in the office reading this after a hard day of coading and laughing at you right?
After about the 6th compression in the new 109s I couldn't get out of in time, before the dirt smacked me I stopped laughing.
Compression has always been a problem in the 109s, but you could cut throttle, kick rudder, turn off combat trim and pound on the K key and normally get out of the compression before the trees ate you for lunch.
I took a K4 out last night, and ate dirt. I flew the G14 for 0 kills 1 death and the K4 for 0 kills and 1 death this month.
Last month I was 29 and 8 in the G14, it is a total piece of kee rap compared to the G6, and 20 and 4 in the new G6. Just checkin my scores and I have been about 4 to 1 in 109s over the last few tours. I was 106 n 17 in the F4 in Sept tour. So I'm no Nath or Wetrat, but it isn't like I haven't flown them.
HT is laughing, I am flying LA's and Spits now.
At least someone thinks it's funny.
-
Foder, if you're compressing 109's, you're not flying them right. You need to work the throttle... that's half the battle in 109's. You can't do the snoozfest BnZ cherrypicking P51's/47's/spits/190's/la7's can pull off... the plane just doesn't work like that. And if put any amount of time in 109's, you should probably have elev. trim up mapped on your stick somewhere. I don't find any difference in compression between the K4 and G10... the last time I was active (August) I was flying the G10. When I came back last month, the G10 was the K4. I hopped in it and flew it the EXACT same... there's no difference.
-
I'm no Nath, Stang or Wetrat either (all of whom say the G-10/K-4 are identical BTW). I'm 17- 5 in the G-14, 4-0 in the K-4 (one sortie) and 17-4 in the 190A-5. They all seem to me to fly just like they always have since the change to AH2, same strengths and same weaknesses. What has changed is their crappy views got worse and their most common opponents (was the Spit V, now is the Spit VIII/XVI) have gotten much better. In that sense as I have said before, their performance relative to what type of plane you are most likely to fight has changed, but not the real performance.
-
Originally posted by Grits
I'm no Nath, Stang or Wetrat either (all of whom say the G-10/K-4 are identical BTW). I'm 17- 5 in the G-14, 4-0 in the K-4 (one sortie) and 17-4 in the 190A-5. They all seem to me to fly just like they always have since the change to AH2, same strengths and same weaknesses. What has changed is their crappy views got worse and their most common opponents (was the Spit V, now is the Spit VIII/XVI) have gotten much better so in that sense as I have said before, their performance relative to what type of plane you are most likely to fight has changed, but not the real performance.
Spot on with relative performance... when I come across a Seafairy/sissyV/sissy9, it's like I'm fighting a P40. The VIII and XVI take away the K4's climb rate advantage of old --- one of the best tools we used to have against sissyfires.
-
It's not the views that are affecting the flight. It's not the "relative" strength of the spits because the few times I took 109s up before quitting them, I wasn't encountering any spits, just older planes that I knew I could/should be able to kill.
Wetrat: I think what fodder is saying is that he used to be able to do things that he can no longer do. I used to dive 109s at high speed on targets all the time, you'd stiffen up but if you throttled back you would slow down and side slipping with rudders kept you from over speeding. What he's describing now is that he can't get out of compression anymore. I noticed that the controls lock up almost after takeoff on the new 109s ( :furious ) so compression is an issue now, whereas it never was for me before.
-
Show me a film of something you used to be able to do in a G10 (in AH2) that you can't do now... I dive in on things at compression speeds too, same as I used to in a G10, and I haven't lawndarted a K4 once. I've chopped down a few trees (grrr), but they're generally harder to predict than the baby seals in the MA. I really don't see any difference in the thing, and I've logged entirely too much time in it.
-
The "109s has changed" claim is pointless. HT says they didn't - even if you convince every single one on this board that they did, HT knows what he did or didn't do. It will get you nothing.
All FM changed from AH1 to AH2. iirc HT said that they have a better resolution for calculating the airflow in the models and that results in a better prediction for near stall behaviour. Also he said that they re-did the torque.
The 109 performance complaints may have some merit IF supported by DATA. The "how could the LW perform so well with such crappy planes" complaint will get you no where. Near stall behaviour is harder to prove as well as to predict and model. That is a soft point that may be worth looking into by HT. This is also a relative issue as we can't tell if it's the 109s that are wrong or all the other models are.
If you want to get something to change you have to be specific and support it by data. What is wrong with the 109s? Slow speed handeling? probably. Early compression? could be. Cockpit views are wrong? maybe.
Now prove it.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by bozon
If you want to get something to change you have to be specific and support it by data. What is wrong with the 109s? Slow speed handeling? probably. Early compression? could be. Cockpit views are wrong? maybe.
Now prove it.
Bozon
There is nothing wrong with 109E4, F4, G2, and K4
the problem with the remaining 109s...
109G-6
* 109G-6 needs 50 more rounds of 20mm nose cannon
109G-14 (DB-605 AM engine)
* 109G-14 needs 50 more rounds of 20mm nose cannon
* 109G-14's maximim speed is ~15 mph slower at Full Throttel Height at 16,400 ft (109G-14's top speed is 415mph)
as for compression, 109s DO NOT suffer from early compression. The problem is the 109's controls. the 109's stick forces become too great at 450mph and beyond.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
as for compression, 109s DO NOT suffer from early compression. The problem is the 109's controls. the 109's stick forces become too great at 450mph and beyond.
That's right... there's no dive you can't get out of with trim (if you have enough room).
-
Originally posted by wetrat
That's right... there's no dive you can't get out of with trim (if you have enough room).
and currently trim does not pull you out? Last time I took a G2 it seemed fine. I'll try it again.
-
Originally posted by Grits
What has changed is their crappy views got worse and their most common opponents (was the Spit V, now is the Spit VIII/XVI) have gotten much better.
Yup.
- oldman (but we DO have the G-14 now, which is a lot of fun)
-
Yeah, I'm kinda fond of the G-14 myself Oldman.