Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Simaril on February 17, 2006, 09:01:58 AM
-
This claim keeps coming up on the BBS and 200 chat. I frankly am getting tired of hearing it, and tired of the claimant's imperviousness to logic when its been discussed.
After posting a response buried deep in some other thread, I thought it might be worthwhile to get it more out in the open for general discussion. So, I'm reposting as a new thread....
Originally posted by Glasses
...snip...
Yeah and they know it'll remain the same,cus LW sucking =$$$$$
...snip...
This nonsense claim is driving me nuts.
Several LW proponents routinely claim that HTC deliberately porks LW because US customers wouldnt play if the LW were as "good as it was supposed to be."
That idea is 100% without basis in fact.
One. When I work with newbs, they often ask "whats the best plane?" Obviously there's no simple answer to that, but the implication is obvious: they want to know what plane gives them the best chance of success as a beginner. They dont care if I tell them the Soviet La-7 for speed, or the British Spit VIII for turning, the Japanese Nik for maneuverability+firepower, or the US P-51 for energy fighting. THEY JUST WANT WHAT WORKS, and they dont care about politics. HTC would lose no money if I they heard that the Fw-190D-9 was a good starting BnZ plane...newbs would just fly it (and gloat about their kills).
Two. Other VERY successful games have non- US uber weapons. Call of Duty's best gun is probably the MP-44, and the US BAR is heavy and slow. The Garand has less hitting power than it should. No one cares. CounterStrikes best guns are not US weapons. No one cares. Players want to succeed, and they want to learn each games' quirks on its own terms. Its not about nationalism playing a game, players just want to succeed.
Three. If anything, in the US market the WW2 German side carries a mystique that sells. For many years in the computer games press I remember reading that "nukes and Nazis" were slam dunk topics. Panzer General introduced unit quality enhancement to computer wargames, and sold like proverbial hotcakes, all from the german side. When they ported the idea to the allied side (Pacific General), the game died -- because it was stale, not because of nationalism. Steel Panthers succeeded even though it accurately modelled the overwhelming power of the 88mm AT gun, the power of the Tiger, and the wimpiness of allied armor. In general, being able to play the bad guy or underdog's side has a dark appeal, which is why (for example) many wished they could play the Alien side in X-Com. I could go on and on, but the point is obvious to anyone who thinks about it.
You can criticize the modelling of the LW rides if you want, but leave out the "economic driven" slander. It's absolutely 100% illogical drivel.
If you still disagree, here's the challenge:
I've given multiple examples of games that succeeded despite haveing better German weapons. Show me an example of a well designed, well marketed game that failed BECAUSE OF a setup that favored the Germans.
-
i think whining about the LW stuff is a little silly. i mean sure, there are a few things that could be fixed, eg the 109 flaps and the g14 performance, but the fun in flying the LW rides comes from them being a challenge
-
I played Steel Panthers tabletop. I personally, have no problems in the LW rides.
Karaya
-
I dont pretend to know enough to say whether they're right or wrong. The "porking for financial gain" thing has jsut gotten to be a burr under my saddle.
I always liked Steel Panthers, really fun game. Since I dont have many gamers around me, I really liked the adequate AI and the fog of war that made unsighted units invisible.
-
Although I also don't have enough experience with the LW rides to jump the fence over to correct or incorrect.. I'd have to agree that basing the facts off of a financial mission sounds pretty bogus to me. I'd also have to note Pooface, in saying that taking up a LW ride seems to be more of a challenge just due to the nature of their characteristics - to quote a snip from Soda's Evaluation page on the 190D, "tends to find more success to those with a little more experience". That's for sure.
In any case, to add a side dish to Simaril's main meal I'd have to list the Close Combat series, the Combat Mission series, Silent Storm, & Silent Hunter III. There's just something about fine German weaponry implemented in a game that makes me tingle. Coming across a King Tiger in CC, using a Stug G in CM, finding that MG42 for your machine gunner in SS, and wreaking havoc in the Atlantic in a VIIC U-Boat makes for some good moments. I've not once came across a game that's gimped German weaponry for some more financial appeal.
*shrug*
-
Agreed. It is not money driven. I don't even know if there is anythign wrogn with LW planes. I do know that they are different from any other plane in the game. I can do things in non german planes 10ft off the water that the thought of doing in a 109 would cause the plane to spin.
Again, not saing there is anything wrong with their modeling. It could be the modeling of the other planes, or it could be that this is how it was. They are just so different than the rest that they stick out.
Last night after running out of ammo, I had to dog fight my B17 vs a 190 few feet off the water. While I was able to pull on the stick on the 17 as hard as I wanted and use flaps to even pull a reversal on the 190, after the fifth atempt he fall in the water. To make maters worst, I did not dump my bombs till after the third pass. That has to be wrong :lol
-
Not that I agree with it, but you asked..
"Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe"
Bought it, flew it maybe 2 hours and put it on the shelf.
-
The financial aspect of it is stupid. There's no reason to claim this happens for money reasons.
It just happens. Doesn't make it right. Doesn't mean it's a conspiracy motivated with reasons ($$$ in this case), it just means it happens.
-
The fact that it requires more skill to fight (well) in a 109 is probably accurate... how many 109's were lost to landing/takeoff accidents? I think that's a fair indication of the plane's behaviour. HOWEVER... the flaps are wrong. The flaps are also wrong on P51's/47's. The flaps being wrong on the allied birds makes them fly better. That's fine with me. The flaps being wrong on the 109's makes them pigs. I notice a SIGNIFICANT difference in handling in the threshold between 180mph, a little to fast to drop flaps, but definitely in need of them, and 165(or170... whatever indicated speed they start going down at) when I can start dumping them. The plane handles MUCH better, and fights with my inputs much less once I start getting flaps down. With a few notches of flaps at 150mph, the plane handles better/more forgivingly than it does at 190-200 without them.
Flaps won't make 109's easy, and it certainly won't turn them into MesserSPITS, but they'll be more competitive in our main arcade. Give me a 109G2 that can drop flaps at the correct speed, and I'll show you a 109 that can thoroughly slaughter the ezmoders.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Two. Other VERY successful games have non- US uber weapons. Call of Duty's best gun is probably the MP-44, and the US BAR is heavy and slow. The Garand has less hitting power than it should. No one cares. CounterStrikes best guns are not US weapons. No one cares. Players want to succeed, and they want to learn each games' quirks on its own terms. Its not about nationalism playing a game, players just want to succeed.
[/B]
I agree with everything but this... I played CAL-O/M/I & CPL in Counter-Strike, and dollar for dollar, the M4 rocks :) Every bit as good as the AK.
-
I used to play this game all the time and read the boards whenever I had the chance. Been away for the better part of 2 years, with occasioinal moments of popping back into the game and BBS every so often. I am so glad that the LW conspiracy theories and worries are alive and well. They are just as entertaining now as they were back when it was RAM doing the whining.
Please, do not discourage them too much. Without them, the boards would be stale repeats of killshooter and gangbang whines with furball vs. strat arguments thrown in from time to time.
So, in closing, I give a hearty to the likes of RAM and Hristo, with a nod to their modern heirs like Crump, storch and a doff of the cap to the long time holdouts like Glasses. You all have given this allied opportunist a good source of entertainment and peek into the psyche of the good little internet Bundes.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Last night after running out of ammo, I had to dog fight my B17 vs a 190 few feet off the water. While I was able to pull on the stick on the 17 as hard as I wanted and use flaps to even pull a reversal on the 190, after the fifth atempt he fall in the water. To make maters worst, I did not dump my bombs till after the third pass. That has to be wrong :lol
see it is things like that many of us "lw aficionados" have witnessed, and make us believe the conspiracy. personally i am :furious :mad: :rofl :lol :cry :aok about the whole thing :p
-
The flaps are not wrong on the Pony. Nice try.
-
People will fly whatever's "best" regardless of the country of manufacture ... if HT shoved jet packs and a photon cannon on the C202 this afternoon I guarantee almost everyone would be flying it tonight. And everyone who wasn't would be complaining about Uber and Porkage.
-
Newbies and quakelike will pick "best" DoK.
Old farts fly what they like ;-)
Most of the case in ww2 online a2a games there is no big probs to fly LW iron, actually there is only 3 i have played;Wb, AH and ww2ol.
At beginning it is kinda "underdog situation" in LW planes, but that effects mostly to newbies or pure spit/p51/la pilots in LW ride ;-). It takes more time to be effective in 109/190 than spit/p51/Lada.
Of 3 games i mentioned, playing AH you you have best possibilty to be effective in LW plane, next comes WB and last ww2ol:D
I am not the best reference to say this, but i have played everyone enought to get figure;)
puujiikoo
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
People will fly whatever's "best" regardless of the country of manufacture ... if HT shoved jet packs and a photon cannon on the C202 this afternoon I guarantee almost everyone would be flying it tonight. And everyone who wasn't would be complaining about Uber and Porkage.
Ignorant:furious Photon torpedos not cannon :furious :furious :furious
-
simaril,
How can you explain that a P47/P38/F4us with almost double weight and size are soo agile comparing with 190s/109s??
FW190A6/A8 Sturmbock,were called"butcher bird"
,Did you try in AH to intercept a formation of loaded Lancs in at high alt, i did and i couldn't catch them,
-
Ill state it as plainly as I can.
We never have nore ever will adjusted models based on the country of origen.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Ignorant:furious Photon torpedos not cannon :furious :furious :furious
Maybe in Star Trek..but not in Battlestar Galactica. They've had photon cannon in several Sci-Fi movies & tv series.
But as far as this discussion...it does seem a bit ridiculous to think HT would nueter LW a/c for the sake of sales. I don't think that idea makes much sense at all. I find them more difficult to handle & easier to stall, but that's because of my way of flying. I saw a head to head on a history channel show of the Spit & 109 ( can't remember the actual model types of the a/c in the tests ) not long ago. It was their determination after getting the two a/c flying against each other for 1v1 dogfighting tests that the outcome of said fight would boil down to pilot skill & who saw who first.
Of course they mentioned the neg. "G" carb. problem the early Spits had; & they mentioned that the 109 pilots best defense in his fuel injected machine was to force the Spit into a neg. "G" dive to stall his engine ( if the Spit pilot was foolish enough to fall for it ) then pounce on him. What a lot of the historical numbers don't tell you is the reason for the outcome of a lot of incidents reported. It was pilot attrition (sp?) in a lot of cases that caused accidents or great planes to fall victim to inferior ones. If you have lifted your gear for the first time & it's in combat....I don't care what you're flying....you're probably never coming back.
If I got a an actual report of a dogfight complete with gun-cam footage to back up everything that was claimed, I would still have to wonder what the pilot of the losing aircraft knew or didn't know about air combat. And those incidents skew some modern understanding of the capabilities of certain a/c as well as hollwoods portrayal. How many kids grew up watching movies where the P-51 was un-beatable then get into a flight sim & jump straight into their favorite "un-beatable Mustang, caddilac of the sky" only to get smoked? For me it was the F-4U...I grew up watching Baa-Baa Blacksheep, & I always thought it was the most beautiful plane ever built....sure wish I could fight well ( or even somewhat good ) with it.
-
I have always been one to gripe about the LW aircrafts flight models, particularly the 190's, but after reading Simaril's post's the last few days, especially the one with the documented testing I now see that I was wrong, they look pretty accurate to me now that I have read all that, so you at least converted 1 person Simaril :)
-
I don't think the LW planes are rubbish, in fact thats what I mostly fly even if I do suck in them. But I bet you're going to get more
in them in a fight than if you were flying a LA7 or a P-51.
The reason people think that the LW planes are "porked" because the 190 isn't a turnfighter that people want it to be. The 109 isn't easy to aim with and has an anemic high-power ammo load. People complain because they are not getting the fun they want and figure IT HAS TO BE HTC. Its not, its the pilot.
If I am scoring kills left and right in 109's and 190, then theres nothing wrong with them. I can't cherry pick, BnZ correctly, so I have to be skillfull and manipulate my X52 and CH Rudder to do what I want.
I'll tell you this though: If you see someone flying a 109, 75% of the time its a pilot who knows what they are doing. The other 25% are hoping to be like the other 75%.
-
Originally posted by -pjk--
Newbies and quakelike will pick "best" DoK.
Old farts fly what they like ;-)
...
Yeah, and fortunately AH has enough alternatives to keep folks happy if their favorite ride isn't competitive in the MA.
I have big fun in the La-5 and Yak-9, if my gunnery didn't blow chunks I'd even have kills in them planes.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Ill state it as plainly as I can.
We never have nore ever will adjusted models based on the country of origen.
HiTech
I've seen a lot of nice fish in my time, but this one takes the cake :)
culero ~g,d,rlh~
-
Mathman == teh old wise monk !
-
I think the 190's are fairly accurate, with the exception of the A8. Our A8 sucks. Badly. German pilots who flew the A8 loved it, and in many cases preferred it to the A5. In AH, I think anyone who'd prefer to fight in an A8 vs. an A5 only flies in straight lines :p
My only gripe with the 109 FM is flap deployment... other than that, I think they're fairly accurate. Notable exception being the G14... its performance figures are just plain wrong. It flies like a late G6 or something. In the latter stages of the air war, only experienced/skilled pilots were successful in 109's... everyone else got shot down and/or died. If anything, our 109's are too forgiving on takeoff/landing... but then, so are the hogs and several others.
In conclusion, GIVE ME MY FLAPS. :furious
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I have big fun in the La-5 and Yak-9, if my gunnery didn't blow chunks I'd even have kills in them planes.
Dok...
I found the cure for the gunnery problem. Crawl up the bad guy's anal orifice and shoot your way out from the inside. :)
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Dok...
I found the cure for the gunnery problem. Crawl up the bad guy's anal orifice and shoot your way out from the inside. :)
Listen to this man. He's discovered the secret to gunnery with non-ezmode weapons.
-
Originally posted by Fencer51
Not that I agree with it, but you asked..
"Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe"
Bought it, flew it maybe 2 hours and put it on the shelf.
Hehe.
I'm still safe with the qualifiers..."well designed" keeps me safe for SWoTL. I never bought the game because it got anemic reviews in Computer Gaming World at the time. Long time ago, but as I remember the buzz was that it made more compromises than Larry Holland had in Their Finest Hour, and that its move towards arcadism would turn off some players.
Originally posted by Ghi
simaril,
How can you explain that a P47/P38/F4us with almost double weight and size are soo agile comparing with 190s/109s??
FW190A6/A8 Sturmbock,were called"butcher bird"
,Did you try in AH to intercept a formation of loaded Lancs in at high alt, i did and i couldn't catch them,
Having read soem detailed operational histories (my favorite being the very LONG JG 26, I'd say the biggest reason is that the real life pilots flew with tactics that have NO SIMILARITY to AH2. Sortie after sortie, you read about 190s gaining alt advantage, diving (often unseen) in from the sun for a brutal, deadly pass, and then doing a split-s before clearing out of Dodge. In AH, the LW guys want their birds to knife fight and complain when they dotn get the same results as were seen "historically".
About your bomber attack: Not having a film, its hard to say. But I can share something of my own experience that might explain it.
High alt fighting is VERY different than usual AH2 fare -- I've found that after a tour or two delivberately working on it.
The first time I tried to chase 22K+ buffs in a 262, I found the Swalbe wallowed and died at about 20K. I'd try to climb at full throttle, but stalled out repeatedly and resorted to using flaps to maintain stability. I never even got an attack run going.
Second time, I figured out how to do it and was zipping through the air, slashing away well above 25K.
The problem wasnt the model, its was me. I was trying to climb the same way I did at 10K, and it doesnt work up high. (Aeronautics types, correct me when I mess this up.) If you climb too steeply up high, you have to increase the angle of attack so much that the wing loses its lift -- also generating more resistance to forward motion and slowing you down further. My second sortie, I let the bird build up a head of steam, and once that high speed was established I could gently climb and maneuver. BUT...at high alt you have to move smoothly and gently.
If you think of on the deck fighting as being like karate, high alt fighting is like Tai Chi -- that exercise thing you see old people doing in chinese parks. If you dont adapt, ANY plane will behave badly up high.
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Dok...
I found the cure for the gunnery problem. Crawl up the bad guy's anal orifice and shoot your way out from the inside. :)
Yeah ... now that I'm trying to fly w/o tracers I pulled conv down to 300 and shoot much closer in. When I hit something with a solid burst from the La-5 it usually doesn't last long after that.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
I think the 190's are fairly accurate, with the exception of the A8. Our A8 sucks. Badly. German pilots who flew the A8 loved it, and in many cases preferred it to the A5. In AH, I think anyone who'd prefer to fight in an A8 vs. an A5 only flies in straight lines :p
My only gripe with the 109 FM is flap deployment... other than that, I think they're fairly accurate. Notable exception being the G14... its performance figures are just plain wrong. It flies like a late G6 or something. In the latter stages of the air war, only experienced/skilled pilots were successful in 109's... everyone else got shot down and/or died. If anything, our 109's are too forgiving on takeoff/landing... but then, so are the hogs and several others.
In conclusion, GIVE ME MY FLAPS. :furious
IMO, this is exactly the problem and the cause of the constant complaints and ultimately the "conspiracy theories".
From posts like this and others I've seen, it seems to be common knowledge / accepted fact that there are KNOWN problems with AT LEAST a few LW planes. These problems have been out there for a while with requests to have them fixed.
And they remain unfixed.
And they still remain unfixed.
And they remain unfixed AGAIN.
And so on . . .
So eventually someone gets it in their head that there must be a REASON the known problem remains unfixed. I know enough to know that I don't know anything about programming (did that make sense??), therefore I personally give the designers the benefit of the doubt and say, "Geez, it must be a big deal to make even little fixes, they will get to it eventually."
A less forgiving (or perhaps more programming knowledgeable?) person may instead come to the conclusion "it is such a small fix, they must WANT the LW to be wrong". Then insert favorite conspiracy theory here. :noid
Like most conspiracy theories, they may tend toward the loopy (intentionally messing up your flight model makes you MORE money?? :huh WHA?), but I can at least see why they got started in the first place.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Yeah ... now that I'm trying to fly w/o tracers I pulled conv down to 300 and shoot much closer in. When I hit something with a solid burst from the La-5 it usually doesn't last long after that.
Dok...
I, generally, don't start shooting until I figure I'm at 300 or less. I have my convergence set at 275. I had tracers off until recently. I found all of the crap associated with them to be a major distraction. I turned 'em back on when I took up buff hunting as a hobby. I wanted to watch film and see where dem bullets was going. :)
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
I, generally, don't start shooting until I figure I'm at 300 or less. I have my convergence set at 275. I had tracers off until recently. I found all of the crap associated with them to be a major distraction. I turned 'em back on when I took up buff hunting as a hobby. I wanted to watch film and see where dem bullets was going. :)
Tracers tell the buff driver that he's being fired at and from where - just like anything else. I started taking a lot fewer gunner hits and got a lot more undefended passes once I turned tracers off.
As for the LW planes, I personally have far fewer issues with the performance numbers than with the handling characteristics. All of which have been discussed elsewhere.
-
"but the fun in flying the LW rides comes from them being a challenge"
:aok
Ps. Simaril, I really wonder why this kind of thread has no been locked already, and even more I wonder why you started it. You being pissed of something somebody said in textbuffer is not a very good reason. I think it's just harmful propaganda, and aimed at certain people you consider as your opposition. Just as Mathman's post. Harassment.
-C+
-
In Track Mania Nations the German rides do pretty well too :O
(and the graphics are awsome!!)
Fix the 109 flaps and the 190 snap roll!!!!
(then i'll might renew my AH account)
-
My 5 cents....
HTC does the modelling as well as they can, - that relies on backed-up information and such.
I don't know what it is with this slice of the LW crowd (well, I am a kinda LW geek myself actually), - but sometimes I think people go mad from LW-geeking.
I mean, scream out loud "we don't have the BEST 109/190", or "our 109/190" aren't modelled completely correctly according to this&that yadayadayada...........It still doesn't change the fact that we don't have the ultimate P51/Spit/Mossie etc etc either!
The modelling is always under HTC's looking-eye, they accept information from documents, they are testing, looking for feedbacks, and thereby reading through many a bloody silly thread.
But allied-biased in their programming...well, if anything, they are biased for the USSR, hehehehehe......
-
Angus, I think there are two sets of issues being raised with the LW planes. One is what you suggest - that the version ain't the best, that it should faster, etc. etc. etc.
The other camp is looking at the bizarre snap-spin, the low-speed wallowing, and the drop-right-out-of-the-sky stalls which don't seem to affect any other planes. These, IMNHO, are at least as important as the actual performance numbers because they govern just how much of that flight envelope you can actually get at and use. And they're harder to figure out too because your dealing with dynamic effects and how these map to impressions pilots had flying these planes sixty years ago.
Honestly, I have so much faith in HT getting the performance numbers as close to right as anyone can I don't even bother jumping into those arguments. Pyro said the 109 flaps were an oversight and those will come out I'm sure in an impending revision. But the other stuff - that remains unresolved and very, very frustrating to people who want to fly LW planes without having to relearn the game to do so.
-
The 190 snaps in a high-G strall. Ok?
It doesn't run from a La-7 or a P51...yet (there will probably be more 190's)..ok?
The 109 does not turn with a Spitfire...ok?
The 109 from 1943 cannot run from a La or P51 from 1945, - ok?
I mean, I don't see anything big.
And the low speed wallowing, - huh? Well, with the flaps corrected the 109 will be very competible at lower speeds for instance. The 190 was never famous for low-speed maneuvers, so what's the problem?
The only big thing I can see about the LW rides is the FM of the 110......
-
Originally posted by E25280
IMO, this is exactly the problem and the cause of the constant complaints and ultimately the "conspiracy theories".
From posts like this and others I've seen, it seems to be common knowledge / accepted fact that there are KNOWN problems with AT LEAST a few LW planes. These problems have been out there for a while with requests to have them fixed.
And they remain unfixed.
And they still remain unfixed.
And they remain unfixed AGAIN.
And so on . . .
So eventually someone gets it in their head that there must be a REASON the known problem remains unfixed. I know enough to know that I don't know anything about programming (did that make sense??), therefore I personally give the designers the benefit of the doubt and say, "Geez, it must be a big deal to make even little fixes, they will get to it eventually."
A less forgiving (or perhaps more programming knowledgeable?) person may instead come to the conclusion "it is such a small fix, they must WANT the LW to be wrong". Then insert favorite conspiracy theory here. :noid
Like most conspiracy theories, they may tend toward the loopy (intentionally messing up your flight model makes you MORE money?? :huh WHA?), but I can at least see why they got started in the first place.
I have some knowledge of programming, and flap deployment speed for each notch of flaps is most likely a variable. That is to say, if "x" was the first notch of flaps in a K4, then "x = 170". If I'm correct in this, then it doesn't seem like too arduous a task to fix this problem.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Tracers tell the buff driver that he's being fired at and from where - just like anything else. I started taking a lot fewer gunner hits and got a lot more undefended passes once I turned tracers off.
Dok...
Yeah, I know. But, letting them know I'm coming makes it much more fun. Heck, by the time I start on the 3rd buff in the form, they might already have figured it out. :D
-
I never wanted to be the aliens in x-com
-
Originally posted by wetrat
I have some knowledge of programming, and flap deployment speed for each notch of flaps is most likely a variable. That is to say, if "x" was the first notch of flaps in a K4, then "x = 170". If I'm correct in this, then it doesn't seem like too arduous a task to fix this problem.
With my (non)knowledge, I would assume it would be the same simple fix too. So, you get the nice buzzing sound and the graphics change at 170mph. But, the part I don't know and wouldn't dare speculate on is how many other changes you would need in the code that actually describe the flight model.
Right now we have a set of programming that describes how the plane handles. So, flying at 160 in a 109 means certain things at certain pitch, roll, yaw, throttle, etc. If you change the flap deployment so that flaps are available at 160, you now may have to code a different set of characteristics for a 109 with one notch of flap at all angles of pitch, roll, throttle, etc. Now do the same thing at 155 with one notch, or 150 with one notch AND two notches, etc. And that would be without stick input. How many tens or hundreds of different stick inputs could there be, all with a different outcome at each different speed when there either IS or ISN'T a notch of flaps extended? Suddenly, it doesn't seem like quite so simple a change to me.
Like I said, I don't pretend to know anything about that level of programming and I could be way over-complicating it. But on the other hand, if it was as simple as changing "x=120" to "x=170", then I have to believe it would have been fixed a LONG time ago given it is an admitted problem.
-
I've flown in and against 109's in scenarios modelling earlier parts of WWII. There, in my opinion, the 109E is better than the Spit I and Hurricanes and the 109F better than the Spit V and Hurricanes.
Overall (not just any particular time period and in the MA, too), I think the 110G is quite good.
I haven't flown 190's much at all, but I've flown against them a lot, and the D's seem decent.
-
Deleted
-
So there.:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
k4 is very uber..just not in a newbs hands..i fly spit 16s cuz i inititiate fights and regularly fly low and outnumbered,,the spit allows me to do this and get a few killz that the k4 cannot...flying a dora/pony/k4/ and having "SA" you can land killz all day..i just find it boring..it all depends what u like to do..have fun and quit the whining..according to history the k4 and the spit 16 are both porked
-
Originally posted by DrDea
Anyone that claims that the LW planes are porked are either
A An idiot
...
Waiting to see if this message gets nuked or not ...
-
Oh come on Dok...I like your pages.....You know the LW isnt porked.You of all people with your flight sim experience from day 1 should have the fax.
-
I hope it does.
The K-4 is identical in stats to the old G-10, and yet somehow it cannot fly as well, it is much more unstable at most speeds and in most conditions that the G-10 thrived in. So, while the stats are the same, perhaps, the overall performance continues to go downhill. I don't give a damn if a few folks that have been flying for 15 years in 30+ different flight sims can get kills in it -- that's besides the point, hell even a monkey can be trained to go into space given enough time -- the point is they keep getting worse, and have been worse, for a long time, when historically they were not this unstable, and while historically their counterparts were nearly deathtraps (yet these counterparts in AH are smooth as a baby's behind).
No conspiracy. No this side vs that side bs. Just the 109s suck, and have for a long time. If you make them NOT suck you will not make them uber. They will simply be possible to fly without stalling out left and right.
-
First of all, the money conspiracy is BOGUS... I have my beef with HTC over a few items but this is one that is very much undeserved... SURE I can be a jerk at times but when you think that there is a $$$ reason to pork the LW models you have truly eclipsed me and I KNOW I can get too bent out of shape sometimes! (Typically after having my arse handed to me a few too many times)
I believe that hitech & company do a better job in some departments than they do in others. It is no mystery to anyone that has read any of my posts that I disagree in the performance, damage and ballistics modeling of SOME of the LW rides. I have said enough elsewhere so there is no need to rehash it here.
Do as I do, when I get frustrated enough, I play other games! When you start to believe that someone is making a lot of money to skew the models... time to switch to Decaf!
-
With a statement like this....
Originally posted by hitech
Ill state it as plainly as I can.
We never have nore ever will adjusted models based on the country of origen.
HiTech
...you would think the whinners would just shut up, swallow the load and move on.
But nope. :lol
Some just like to piss and moan and waste time.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
With a statement like this....
...you would think the whinners would just shut up, swallow the load and move on.
But nope. :lol
Some just like to piss and moan and waste time.
Oh I believe that HT doesn't pork LW planes Morph, but I don't like the priority he gives fixing the flaws in the models.
Remember how fast the "P38 Glass Tail" was fixed??
And playing this game is waisting time anyway, so moaning about it won't make much diff to me.
-
You all know me, you know I've been a russian fighter fan for years.
Yet ever since the 109K4 came out it has been calling my name.
Now granted I'm not a LW fan. But I had it driven home to me quite hard yesterday. Was a nice furball going over the water S of 42. I was flying with Wilbuz, he rolled a dora, I took off in 109K4. Had 15 minutes of good fights , ended up low & slow & died with my 3 kills. Good sortie, good fights, good feelings all around.
Upped in la5, got 2 kills & died. Not bad, got myself in deeper than I should have, my fault.
Upped K4 again, only 2 kills but survived. Awesome.
Upped La5 again, no kills and died right away.
I don't know what the 109k4 "Should" do, all I know is that in the current arena with spit 16's, nik's, and la7's the K4 keeps me alive more often.
And I've seen it day after day, furball after furball.
My only real problems is that I suck at hitting with the tater gun.
But thats MY shortcoming not the planes. What I do know is that I survive more sorties in the 109K4 that I'm NOT all that good at flying. Than I do in the La5fn that I've flown for years.
Sorry but that doesn't add up to LW conspiracy to me.
-
the 109s are uber easy to get kills in.
the 190 A5 kicks the spit16s bellybutton in the general MA standards.
the 262 is the best plane in the game to get kills and stay alive in.
the C205/202 are uber.
the ME163 is stupidly overmodeled.
the tiger is almost the hardest thing to kill in the game.
the ju88 carries the second largest bomb load in the game.
the stuka can outturn a zeke.
That just about nulifies any claims that LW/AXIS is porked imo.
And as to the 'political' or 'business' argument.....
just HOW MANY squads made up of US players are honouring real WW2 LW squadrons?
you think JGXX means 'Jovial Guys'?
pfffffft.
learn to fly, and/or stop basing your theories on the stupid modeling of the IL2 series from maddox games. that set of games is for people who like eye candy but are afraid of ACMs.
my 2c.
-
Originally posted by Charge
...snip....
Ps. Simaril, I really wonder why this kind of thread has no been locked already, and even more I wonder why you started it. You being pissed of something somebody said in textbuffer is not a very good reason. I think it's just harmful propaganda, and aimed at certain people you consider as your opposition. Just as Mathman's post. Harassment.
-C+
Well, you made me think.
I dont have opponents, I dont have grudges. I do have 2-3 people who get under my skin, but to be honest I squelch/ignore them because I dont like how I behave when they get to me. As a matter of personal integrity, I amke a point of publically righting any wrongs I inflict whe I'm mad.
I'm not basing my reaction to the "deliberately porked for money" claim on single incidents or contacts. I did have an extended exchange with soemone once on 200, and I admit I got frustrated because it seemed that no amount of logic and evidence would change his assertions that HTC was deliberately porking the LW for financial reasons.
But, the "porked for money" issue's come up several times scattered in other threads, and it just doesnt seem to go away. Each time I call somebody on the claim, they seem to back down... and several have stopped making the claim. But, some people continue to rant on claiming that HTC is doing it deliberately for financial gain.
That claim is unsupportable by data, and is in any case based on a faulty assumption (that US customers will reject a game with powerful german weapons).
HTC has never hinted that they'd ever go that route, but to be honest they probably have a case to pursue libel charges if they desired. The legal definition in the US is: LIBEL - Published material meeting three conditions: The material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; The defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and, The material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party
Think about it -- the claim is demonstrably false, attacks their professional integrity, assaults their professional product, its published to others on the net, and it can demonstably cause harm to them professionally and financially. It would neither be productive nor effective to pursue libel charges, and it'll never happen -- but that doesnt change the fact that its just flat wrong to spread lies.
Dont misunderstand what I'm saying. Disagreements are fine, and discussing disagreements productively is 100% appropriate. "Yes men" will conspire to produce inferior products. Theres absolutely nothing wrong with thinkning that the LW rides arent modelled correctly, or even with disliking design compromises that hurt one side more than the other for playability's sake. Arguing about the implications of historical reports is completely legitimate.
To put it bluntly, I have no problem with luftwaffe fans and have no interest in who "wins" the discussions. I'm a mediocre enough virtual pilot that anybody with talent can beat me in any particular plane. The times I've posted data its been with a sense of "Cool! Look what I found!" because to me the whole historical research field is like a candy shop -- its all sweet, regardless of the flavor!
I just dont like seeing irrational stuff pushed loudly; because as (I think) Goebbels use to say, "If you repeat the lie loud enough and often enough people will believe it is true."
So thats why I posted.
-
Originally posted by DrDea
Oh come on Dok...I like your pages.....You know the LW isnt porked.You of all people with your flight sim experience from day 1 should have the fax.
I know the performance data isn't porked.
The handling is not right, though. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "porked" but it is not right and it seems only the LW rides are affected by the Luftwobble and other dynamic weirdness. It's probably only a coicidence of one sort or another that made only the LW planes be affected. And it's probably just shaving 10% off some constants here or there to fix it.
-
Question, for HT or those who have sim programming experience:
Is stall behavior from a particular entry in a data table, or does it "emerge" when calculations from multiple formulae using weight, lift, AoA etc are used?
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
the 190 A5 kicks the spit16s bellybutton in the general MA standards.
:huh
yeah, you know what you're talking about..............
-
Well i dont know the definition of conspiracy theory, heck i probably spelled it wrong, but I do know this:
A) Ta152 - Let's not even go there
B) HTC can't get the 109 flaps code right, but can remodel the 262 to fly tougher than it used to............hmmmmm
C) After numerous posts about the overmodel of the old Spit5, HTC correctly models it, then introduces the Spit8 and 16 and the Seafire III while taking out the G10 and putting in an undermodeled G14 and a K4 that is little more than a fast 109 to run away in.
D) Many historical documents point out the dominence of the A5, it out climbs, out accelerates, out dives and more agile than anything allied pre-1942 (giving up only continual turning radius to most allied planes). Tell me that's modelled accuratly.
E) While it's true there are several questionable FMs for a variety of planes, seems to me that while the LW FMs seem slanted to the undermodelled end of the spectrum, allied FMs seem to slant a bit more frequently to the overmodelled end.
F)DrDea is a tool (sorry, had to throw that in there :D )
again I'm not sure if its a conspiracy.................bu t it sure smells like one ;)
-
"Is stall behavior from a particular entry in a data table, or does it "emerge" when calculations from multiple formulae using weight, lift, AoA etc are used?"
I think that is something that has to be "made" into code on every plane separately. The code just cannot be counting these things real time. It could if didn't have to run also graphics, sound and net code etc. AFAIK there are certain tables for different parameters and the code calculates the resulting behaviour and probably uses some approximation to make it all smooth and not too time consuming.
I would be nice to hear how it really happens in this game.
-C+
-
Originally posted by JB42
F)DrDea is a tool (sorry, had to throw that in there :D )
[/B]
DOH!!!! Why you little...................:huh
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
Bla bla
:rofl :rofl
Thx for the best laugh i had today.:rofl
-
Jb42: I strongly dislike being called a lier.
-
All i have to say on this 1 is ....
IN
Bronk
-
It seems as if there's a continual claim of how lw rides are porked"they cant do this ,this cant do that".IMHO the 109g2 is the best of the 109's as far as I care.It will outrun some planes and outturn others,but what it does best of of all is go vertical.I dueled a spit16 against a g2 in the da the other evening.The spit16 was flown by danodano and while I lost these encounters ,they were none the less very difficult fights for the "uber" spit16. After we equalized our E states and were ina scissors,I was able to keep the nose up and float above him on the edge of the stall while he was trying to keep from stalling.Are speeds were around 75-150 at all times during these maneuvers,I had flaps out as did he ,but the spit16 couldnt continually keep nosing up as easily as the g2.I imagine that a more talented pilot than myself could easily have beaten the spit 16.I frequently find that they fall prey to ropes as the g2 will just outclimb it.I am most successfull against it if I can just get him to go vertcal and turn to the left.
As far as other aircraft are concerned I have some trouble aginst the spit8 and spit9 which I feel are superior to the spit16 in other area than roll rate.I landed 6 kills last evening in a spit9 and 4 of those were spit16's.
As far as the k4's concerned it's a great plane,I just cant hit anything with that tater gunI think it get squerlly if you get below 175mph and is near uncontrollable below 135mph.I have no trouble or take no issue in turn fighting other planes ina 109,it's just a matter of forcing them to continually go vertical.Some of thge reason it maybe so uncontrollable is the massive amount of torque created by the motor.
I think the 109f4 is a great little fighter and since the spitv got neutered it is a great fight between these to a/c.The 109f4 doesnt seem to roll as well but it turns quickly with throttle management.
I am by no means competite in the 109's but I dont see how they're all that bad as some make them out to be.I still prefer to kill "uber" aircraft with a supposedly undermodelled pos plane.And one thing about it that I've noticed is that when people die to a 109 they ussually dont complain because they know they just got sucker punched.
-
Originally posted by JB42
...snip....
again I'm not sure if its a conspiracy.................bu t it sure smells like one ;)
and the uber Bf-110? Havent heard you argue to tone it down some....
-
I have a few questions tho for you guys...and this isn't anything other than I no thing about the preformance data on ANY WW2 aircraft. I only go by what I have seen or read here and there. So my "expertise" is 0 percent.
So here we go...
Were fights in WW2 generally fought at low alt. ?
Are the flight charactaristics that some of you think are porked , because the planes are not flown as they were in WW2 ?
Wasn't the 109's and 190's real shining point and where they WERE rulers of the sky up around 15 -25k ?
What about the U.S. planes do you feel is over moddled ?
Wasn't the P51 , P47 high alt fighters ?
When is the last time any of you actually had a fight that remained ABOVE 5 k?
I ask this because I generally see fight after fight after fight on the deck. Yanking and banking like there's no tomorrow. I do it as well. When is the last time there was a big furball at 20k?
If HT tells me , as a customer , that the flight models are correct , and I do as some of you have done and run around testing this and that and find that it is VERY close to what the data I downloaded from some expert site says it is , or what I read in some Jg26 book , then why wouldn't I let the topic go?
When is the last time ANYONE here actually FLEW a 190A5 or 109G2 , Spit Vb , P51D , LA7 , B-17 , Spit 16 or 8. I would think , that until that happens , that all you can go by is what some test pilot said in 1943 about what the plane could and couldn't do. I would also submit that each test pilot may come close to the other on a particular plane , but still would vary slightly.
Maybe , and thats a big maybe , when programming the deployment speed for the flaps in a 109 a key got fat fingered and instead of 150 it came out to be 170. I have no idea.
I just don't seem to think tho , that HT would ever , as the owner of HiTech Creations , that he would do anything of the sort as to model something because of money. Just to hard for me to come to that conclusion at all.
Just some questions folks...no digs here...just wondering.
-
Willing or not but the game is going in one clear direction:
-Ta-152 .........:cry .:cry .:cry .:cry .:cry I won't even talk about it.
-G-10 is out.
-G14 too slow
-K-4 and have no gun pods option even that there are units that received them with them on from the factory.
-G-6 can't take Mk-108 ( Modeled strictly for early 1943) but P-51 can fly with 2x1000lb and 6x5 inch rockets in the same time. I did not find anything about P-51 carrying both in the same time during WW2.
Visibility:
-New 109's got nice thick bars
-New spitfires look like they have wires instead of cockpit bars.
-The p-51B got Malcolm Hood instead the cage canopy that was known to offer a very poor visibility to the rear. I know, was modeled so could be also used to simulate RAF Mustangs. But I doubt the Malcolm Hood -Mustang is going to be used only from April 1944 when it actually started to be used. Is going to be used from December 1943 or latest Jan 1944, giving a clear unfair visibility advantage, that back then, P-51 pilots did not have.
-Flaps unavailable for axis planes. You can lower gear before you can drop flaps, kinda kills their purpose.
-Bf-109 and FW-190 have a bad instability close to the stall speed, clearly visible in Kwessa's turn tests. That alone makes combat maneuvers very hard at normal low and mid altitude and almost impossible at high altitude.
-Fw-190A8 can't perform what it did in WW2. It can't intercept bombers at high altitude. Above 25k the plane can't catch a Lancaster not even talking about B-17's or B26's.
This are probably not intentional but this is what you see in the game. This is how I see the game evolve.
I like challenges, i like to fly the under dog, but I'm not into masochism. At some point I get tired and move on.
AH is a great game but things like this get you tired.:cry
-
It's a conspiracy I tell you:noid
:rolleyes:
-
It's more than a "fat finger" keeping the 109 flaps from being fixed. If it came out that the flaps on the mustang were wrong, they'd be fixed TONIGHT. 109 flaps have been a known problem for a looooooooooooooooooooooooong time.
-
My intent was not to imply you're a LIAR Dale. I will concur that it's not about money or country of origin. It just seems that certain planes either go unfixed for certain reasons or are immediatly fixed for other reasons. I guess I just to understand that with all the information that has been posted on many different forums, why some planes are not brought up or down to the provided specs.
It's not just LW, there have been many posts by Mitsu on some of the FMs of many Japanese planes. There has even been some compelling data on the undermodelling of the P40s. So that throws the good guys against the bad guys theory. Heck, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the FM change for the La7 resulting in making it a little less uber?
Perciption is a very subjective opinion. In my perspective, my opinion is that certain planes seem a little more catered too. The case maybe completely false, but it still is what I perceive it to be.
-
Small sideways reply to JB:
The Ki84 actually got some timely tweaks to its engine when it first came out, and then new info came to light.
The P40 data was wishful thinking at best and defies all logic when compared to planes that are LIGHTER and have MORE POWER than it, yet somehow it's supposed to outclimb them all? Not likely. Again, wishful thinking.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
The flaps being wrong on the allied birds makes them fly better.
The only thing wrong with the flaps on allied planes is the hand holding, coddling feature of the auto-retracting flaps.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Krusty
No conspiracy. No this side vs that side bs. Just the 109s suck, and have for a long time.
Somehow I think the blame lies squarely on the pilot instead of the 109 for being sucky...
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by JB42
D) Many historical documents point out the dominence of the A5, it out climbs, out accelerates, out dives and more agile than anything allied pre-1942 (giving up only continual turning radius to most allied planes). Tell me that's modelled accuratly.
Help me out here. Which 1942 or before birds outperform the A5 in AH? Spit IX should be better in some aspects and worse in others but about even overall, and that's late 42.
Someone pointed out where the AH airwar is fought. It's a low alt tac airwar. Hmmmm.
Since we keep talking about historical documents. Here's the combat narrative of an early model 38J-10 pilot. No dive flaps, no power assisted controls. The 370th transitioned to 38s in England in May 44 and this is July so this guy isn't an expert in the 38 by any means, just a competent pilot.
So based on his experience down low against a 109 that bounced him. Is it the 38 being over modeled, the 109 being under modeled or maybe the 109 pilot being undermodeled compared to the Allied driver at the time? Conpiracy perhaps?
Note the last part of the narrative about the 38J and what it was carrying through the fight.
Lt. Royal Madden 370th FG July 31, 1944
"Approximately 15 Me 109s came down on Blue Flight and we broke left. I then made a vertical right turn. Blue Four was ahead and slightly above me. I glanced behind me and saw four Me 109s closing on my tail fast and within range so I broke left and down in a Split S. I used flaps to get out and pulled up and to the left. I then noticed a single Me 109 on my tail and hit the deck in a sharp spiral.
We seemed to be the only two planes around so we proceeded to mix it up in a good old-fashioned dogfight at about 1000 feet. This boy was good and he had me plenty worried as he sat on my tail for about five minutes, but I managed to keep him from getting any deflection. I was using maneuvering flaps often and finally got inside of him. I gave him a short burst at 60 degrees, but saw I was slightly short so I took about 2 radii lead at about 150 yards and gave him a good long burst. There were strikes on the cockpit and all over the ship and the canopy came off. He rolled over on his back and seemed out of control so I closed in and was about to give him a burst at 0 deflection when he bailed out at 800 feet.
Having lost the squadron I hit the deck for home. Upon landing I learned that my two 500 pound bombs had not released when I had tried to jettison them upon being jumped. As a result I carried them throughout the fight.”
How'd that happen? Conspiracy back then too?
Geez you guys work too hard at this neutered LW stuff :)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
snip
Geez you guys work too hard at this neutered LW stuff :)
Its the leather underwear :)
culero
-
Its Soooooootight.Its SOoooooo right:furious
-
Nothing like a LW calimero !
(http://www.vorming.org/gallery/albums/album11/calimero_KL.sized.jpg)
Tu reconnait Saw ?
-
Originally posted by wetrat
It's more than a "fat finger" keeping the 109 flaps from being fixed. If it came out that the flaps on the mustang were wrong, they'd be fixed TONIGHT. 109 flaps have been a known problem for a looooooooooooooooooooooooong time.
There's a difference between a "fix" and a "change". 109 flaps are not bugged, they work as intended so the need no fixing, it's no bug. The deployment speed, which is a subjective issue related to game mechanics, modeling decisions and available data, are perhaps too low and might be changed. I can see why it takes low priority with HTC.
Originally posted by JAWS2003
-Flaps unavailable for axis planes. You can lower gear before you can drop flaps, kinda kills their purpose.
And what do you think is the purpose of flaps? Perhaps the only plane that have plenty of examples of combat flaps usage is the P38. All the others, RAF USAF or LW have a few anaectotes of it being used and usually describing it as exceptional. In all those stories the flaps were deployed when the planes were locked in a slow turning circle, not when going 400 mph. So yes, you can argue if slow means 180 or 200 mph and how far over the pilot manual's numbers can the flaps be used before breaking. With a great lack of data on flaps deployment above limits given in the manual, the manual numbers are what HTC adopted. Again, this is a modeling decision I can understand and the only way to have an un biased modeling - the official figures.
Personally, I'd limit all flaps on all planes to 200 mph max. I hate the way they are used in flight sims.
Originally posted by RedTop
When is the last time ANYONE here actually FLEW a 190A5 or 109G2 , Spit Vb , P51D , LA7 , B-17 , Spit 16 or 8.
I'm afraid that even if someone did actually fly these planes we'll have all the "experts" here claim that the test plane under/over performs because the ailerons were not trimmed right, the engine was fixed by a POW, the fuel was not the uberkrautenfuelstompen type used at that time and the earth is warmer today than it was in 1944 and anyway it's the G14R23FUBAR model and not the G14R24bFUBAR model which was 2 grams lighter since it did not have an ACHTUNG sticker behind the pilot.
Yes, the 109s are unstable at low speeds compared to other planes and that should be looked into. All the rest is crap.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Somehow I think the blame lies squarely on the pilot instead of the 109 for being sucky...
ack-ack
Its not only the sucky 109 and 190 pilots that complain Ack Ack.
-
Originally posted by bozon
. . . because the ailerons were not trimmed right, the engine was fixed by a POW, the fuel was not the uberkrautenfuelstompen type used at that time and the earth is warmer today than it was in 1944 and anyway it's the G14R23FUBAR model and not the G14R24bFUBAR model which was 2 grams lighter since it did not have an ACHTUNG sticker behind the pilot.
Heh! :aok
-
The deployment speed, which is a subjective issue related to game mechanics, modeling decisions and available data, are perhaps too low and might be changed. I can see why it takes low priority with HTC.
I can't see why it gets low priority with HTC Bozon, especially considering all the commotion about it ;)
The same goes for the 109 low speed instability and the 190 high speed snap roll tendency (which you have to correct with rudder while losing all E in the process).
These are not single whines from a N00B "LW" wannebe that lost a fight and is sour about it. Its from numerous AH players that dedicated their online time to a certain LW airplane the same as other players dedicate their flying time to P38 and P51. And players should be happy that there are plp that want to fly 109's and 190's otherwise you wouldn't have any to fight with. (must be fun to play a WWII Sim/Game with axis planes only)
These are complains that have been put up for discussion (with HT) for numerous times with data to back it up. What more is needed??
(I'm only clueless why the mentioned problems don't get fixed).
-
:rolleyes: ... For the zillion-th time: its not a speed-climb-stall numbers issue. Its a matter of stability at the edge of the flight envelope that makes flying some LW aircraft too much difficult. And this RELATIVELY to some other aircraft, not all of then allied. The Bf110 for example .... have you seen how well does it outloop so many light fighters?
One must be blind not to see how are 190s and 109s after having flown the Pony, the Jug or the Spitfire XVI: these fly on rails even at the very edge of the envelope.
And please stop saying that the 109s are perfect and uber becouse there are (always the same) three or four players who are real aces in them :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by JB42
Well i dont know the definition of conspiracy theory, heck i probably spelled it wrong, but I do know this:
A) Ta152 - Let's not even go there
B) HTC can't get the 109 flaps code right, but can remodel the 262 to fly tougher than it used to............hmmmmm
C) After numerous posts about the overmodel of the old Spit5, HTC correctly models it, then introduces the Spit8 and 16 and the Seafire III while taking out the G10 and putting in an undermodeled G14 and a K4 that is little more than a fast 109 to run away in.
D) Many historical documents point out the dominence of the A5, it out climbs, out accelerates, out dives and more agile than anything allied pre-1942 (giving up only continual turning radius to most allied planes). Tell me that's modelled accuratly.
E) While it's true there are several questionable FMs for a variety of planes, seems to me that while the LW FMs seem slanted to the undermodelled end of the spectrum, allied FMs seem to slant a bit more frequently to the overmodelled end.
F)DrDea is a tool (sorry, had to throw that in there :D )
again I'm not sure if its a conspiracy.................bu t it sure smells like one ;)
Well said,
But i think the game makes most revenue on North American market, soo the most of the cutomers are happy,
How can you imagine a scenario in ToD, where Allies get nailed bad?
Is like those Hollywood"s Happy ending stories, if would end up bad, peoples can't eat their poopcorn, and ask for money back by the end of the movie,
Yee, Bruce Willis suposed to play in "Titanic" and save them all
-
Originally posted by Apar
The same goes for the 109 low speed instability and the 190 high speed snap roll tendency (which you have to correct with rudder while losing all E in the process).
..
These are complains that have been put up for discussion (with HT) for numerous times with data to back it up. What more is needed??
Has anybody seen data about 109 low speed instability and the 190 high speed snap roll tendency ? I mean actual data ?
A whine is not data. Whines from 20 people in this BB still does not make it "data". The fact that plane A does not have instability is not data that plane B is wrong. Even anecdotal evidence is not data (and there is some opposite anecdotal evidence).
Some data have been presented concerning speeds where flaps can be operated and some G-14 performance issues. And these will be corrected.
-
Originally posted by ghi
But i think the game makes most revenue on North American market, soo the most of the cutomers are happy,
That is why Spitfires, La-7, Ki-84 and N1K2 and Me262 are made so good. As we all know these planes are as American as apple pie. No, wait...:huh
-
People who want to have a FIGHTER plane that has a very high power to weight ratio and is exceptionally nimble and manueverable while still being very stable and forgiving at low speeds are completely ignorant of the laws of physics and aerodynamics. Nimble and maneuverable FIGHTER planes handle that way because they are more directionally unstable. Adding a high power to weight ratio only makes it worse.
I suppose we could make the case that HTC is biased against the P-38:
1. The P-38L is modeled with the Allison -17 engines and NOT the -30 engines, robbing it of over 250HP.
2. Widewing has had a couple of guys we know who flew real P-38's in here, and they say it has a serious lack of elevator authority.
3. The P-38 has autoretract flaps here in AH. It didn't have them, ever.
4. The P-38 stall and spin model does NOT match the test pilot reports by ANY of the Lockheed test pilots. In fact, it isn't even close.
5. The effects of compression are modeled well below 20,000 feet, while no pilot ever interviewed says it was a problem. Most P-38 pilots say you could dive a pre J-25-Lo model from 20,000 feet with impunity, and a post J-25-Lo model from over 25,000 feet easily.
Now, any number of long term hardcore P-38 flyers have argued these points for years. There have been VERY heated disagreements between Dale and several of the aforementioned P-38 flyers over all of the above points. However, I have yet to see anyone of any consequence seriously claim that HTC has some sort of conspiracy going on to handicap the P-38.
The other thing I haven't seen is P-38 flyers continually, repeatedly, and constantly spamming channel 200 all night and every night about the HTC conspiracy against the P-38. I can't say that for the LW contingent. The other night, I listened for TWO HOURS about how the FW 190 was completely porked. The whole time I was FLYING an FW 190 D9 and landing kills.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
learn to fly, and/or stop basing your theories on the stupid modeling of the IL2 series from maddox games. that set of games is for people who like eye candy but are afraid of ACMs.
my 2c.
bullseye!!!!!!!!
saying the LW is deliberately porked is so f**king stupid. you really gotta be sad and insecure to go saying HT goes out of his way to screw up the LW flight model
there are a few problems that do need to be fixed, and they will im sure. but just listen to yourselves :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry
you see most of the guys that fly LW are american, and they have this idea that because they think that LW stuff was better than everything, that it should have been the same way IRL. wherew do you think these reports of 'superiority' come from? certainly not the allies, they thought the things were pigs. yeah, it comes from the inflated egos of the LW bosses, great source of info that is :lol
-
Originally posted by Apar
In Track Mania Nations the German rides do pretty well too :O
(and the graphics are awsome!!)
Fix the 109 flaps and the 190 snap roll!!!!
(then i'll might renew my AH account)
what is track mania nations?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Mathman == teh old wise monkey !
-
Just on a side note because I see this alot where people will use a single story or two to justify a claim.
One or two combat stories isnt absolute proof of anything.
Its always told from one side and for one. Whoever tells a story about anything tends to embellish that story in their favor. Its human nature to make ourselves look good.
And for another. This person or may have been able to knock 3 "y" planes out of the sky with his "z" plane on this particular day. But was this a regular occurance? What was the starting situation like? and what was the quality of the pilots he was going up against? Just because he managed to enguage and kill 3 members of that "YYY" Squadron who had a rep of being good, doesnt mean those guys on that particular day were nothing more then new replacements with little combat experiance.
Particularly as the war went on.
Particularly for the Germans and Japs where they ddint have the luxury of being able to train pilots for extended periods of time.
Its safe to say that as the war went on. the quality of the Axis pilots went down significantly through attrition. While the quality of the allied pilots went up
So you cant go by stories. You have to go by hard data on what the planes could and couldnt do and not by individual combat experiances.
Testimony from pilots that flew can only attest on how THEY flew a particular aircraft and what their impressions of it were.
And those impressions can often conflict as if you read far anough into it you can see in this link I posted
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/articles/109myths/#notes (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/feature/articles/109myths/#notes)
-
That's right, LW rides are OVERMODELED. I am sick of HTCs little LW conspiracy. I can understand, though. He owns a 190D-9, his grandfather was a 109 ace in WWII, but these are not valid reasons for leaving us Allied plane pilots in the hurt.
I call on HTC to STOP PORKING ALLIED PLANES!!!!!! Or I will take my business elsewhere!!!!
Proof:
190D9 vs P51D k/d 1.34
190D9 vs P47N k/d 2.0
190D9 vs La7 k/d 1.06
190D9 vs Spit 16 k/d 1.53
109K vs P51D k/d 2.0
109K vs P47N k/d 1.37
109K vs La7 k/d 1.44
109K vs Spit 16 k/d 1.57
From current tour...
-
Originally posted by Timofei
Has anybody seen data about 109 low speed instability and the 190 high speed snap roll tendency ? I mean actual data ?
A whine is not data. Whines from 20 people in this BB still does not make it "data". [...]
Actually, I posted a description of why, when, and how the 190 snap-roll happened based on scientific analysis of the airframe done in Sweden. That report explained how the US and RAF tests had such different impressions of the 190's low-speed stall. And it was done in a neutral country. I posted that months ago.
Ignoring when people post data just so you can call them whiners is no better than whining without data.
As for the 38 ... yeah ... it should be the ultimate EZ-Mode ride in this game and it surely isn't. I'd rather fly an A20G than a P38, but some people can do well in them big silver things.
As for pilot impressions ... I agree they need to be taken with many, many grains of salt. Especially in-combat impressions. Flight tests are more reliable. The biggest factor I keep in mind when reading combat reports of how one plane pwned another is that a pilot will think whatever plane kept him alive was the greatest thing since slice bread. I've read accounts from the PTO where pilots raved about their P39's and P40's ... even though those planes were complete PoS compared to anything new being pumped out of the factories from 1942 on.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Actually, I posted a description of why, when, and how the 190 snap-roll happened based on scientific analysis of the airframe done in Sweden.
Was it this link:
http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm
That says:
"The Focke Wulf 190 used the NACA 23015.5 as the root airfoil and the NACA 23009 as the tip airfoil. It had some tricky stalling characteristics due to the following facts:
Leading edge separation of the 23-series section airfoils
Only 2° twist
Lack of sufficient torsional rigidity of the wing
The twist was only out to about 80% semi span, which also contributed to the tip stalling tendencies. "
-
Close.
http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/lednicer.htm (the PDF article)
This article is a present day analysis of various WW2 fighters by an aerodynamicist, and it does explain why there were two such divergent impressions of the Fw from flight tests (RAF and USAAF).
You're 0-fer-2 so far.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Close.
http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/lednicer.htm (the PDF article)
This article is a present day analysis of various WW2 fighters by an aerodynamicist, and it does explain why there were two such divergent impressions of the Fw from flight tests (RAF and USAAF).
You're 0-fer-2 so far.
Actually it does not explain: " The reason for this reported difference in non-manoeuvring stall is unknown".
Both reports admitted that the Fw190 stalled abruptly when manoeuvring.
You could actually read the links you provide.
-
Proof:
190D9 vs P51D k/d 1.34
190D9 vs P47N k/d 2.0
190D9 vs La7 k/d 1.06
190D9 vs Spit 16 k/d 1.53
109K vs P51D k/d 2.0
109K vs P47N k/d 1.37
109K vs La7 k/d 1.44
109K vs Spit 16 k/d 1.57
From current tour...stats mean nada from a players perspective..take those SAME 109 drivers and put them in p51's and watch those numbers jump way up..they fly 109 for a more challenging ride..although i dont believe the 109 is porked at all (minus the flap argument) i can see both sides of the argument. Want some changes? have all the uber pilots drive la7's only for one tour and than check the bbs..u will see some serious whining :)
Htc has its hands full for sure trying to maintain equilibrium..a simple explanation for why the 109 flaps are not modeled would be nice, but i think the response from the players wouldnt be...
-
Originally posted by Timofei
Actually it does not explain: " The reason for this reported difference in non-manoeuvring stall is unknown".
Both reports admitted that the Fw190 stalled abruptly when manoeuvring.
You could actually read the links you provide.
You're real cute with the selective omission.
The rest of the paragraph - the part you chose not to read - explains it nicely. Under high load the wing deforms and accelerates the stall. Which is why it stalled sharply during flight test but was gentle at low-speeds when landing.
Despite your IntardNet 101 tactics, your initial rant about no one providing data has been proven false.
-
Originally posted by jaxxo
...
Htc has its hands full for sure trying to maintain equilibrium..a simple explanation for why the 109 flaps are not modeled would be nice, but i think the response from the players wouldnt be...
Pyro said the 109 flaps were supposed to have been fixed by the latest rev by it got left out by accident. I forget what thread that was in - but it was like a month ago. I expect that fix to be part of the next update.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
As for the 38 ... yeah ... it should be the ultimate EZ-Mode ride in this game and it surely isn't.
On the contrary, it is the ultimate EZ Mode plane in AH.
ack-ack
-
Now, any number of long term hardcore P-38 flyers have argued these points for years. There have been VERY heated disagreements between Dale and several of the aforementioned P-38 flyers over all of the above points. However, I have yet to see anyone of any consequence seriously claim that HTC has some sort of conspiracy going on to handicap the P-38.
Exactly!! An issue is an issue. An argument is an argument. A complaint is a complaint. All of these things can happen and still not be a conspiracy. There IS no freakin' conspiracy!!!! There's just problems with several key flight models, the WORST being the ones that get complained about so much (the LW rides).
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
On the contrary, it is the ultimate EZ Mode plane in AH.
Hats off to you, then Ack. I can't do squat in that plane - except be a bigger target. :lol Which is odd because I do great in other slow-rolling planes - even attack bombers - somehow the P38 just doesn't resonate for me, though. If they add the missing 250hp I'd probably try it again - that'd be a speedy beast.
-
Somehow I doubt 250hp would make a significant difference on such a big, heavy, draggy airplane :eek:
And a 109 is only as good as the pilot. In other rides, the plane can make up what the pilot lacks. I can fly and fight in 109's just fine (actually, pretty well), so logic would have me believe that anyone else can too. Just fix my damn flaps~! :furious
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Close.
http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/lednicer.htm (the PDF article)
This article is a present day analysis of various WW2 fighters by an aerodynamicist, and it does explain why there were two such divergent impressions of the Fw from flight tests (RAF and USAAF).
You're 0-fer-2 so far.
This is stunning to me. It really explains why there are divergent reports, and reinforces the idea that the 190 had sudden stall tendencies (esp under G loads).
It also supports the current flight model for the 190s.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Hats off to you, then Ack. I can't do squat in that plane - except be a bigger target. :lol Which is odd because I do great in other slow-rolling planes - even attack bombers - somehow the P38 just doesn't resonate for me, though. If they add the missing 250hp I'd probably try it again - that'd be a speedy beast.
Really? Maybe it's just me but I find it very similiar in flying characteristics to the P-38J from AW4W, with maybe the nod going to AW4W FR P-38J being a little tougher to fly than the AH P-38s.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by ghi
Well said,
But i think the game makes most revenue on North American market, soo the most of the cutomers are happy,
How can you imagine a scenario in ToD, where Allies get nailed bad?
Is like those Hollywood"s Happy ending stories, if would end up bad, peoples can't eat their poopcorn, and ask for money back by the end of the movie,
Yee, Bruce Willis suposed to play in "Titanic" and save them all
I can hear the thin ice creak here...
-
Originally posted by jaxxo
Proof:
190D9 vs P51D k/d 1.34
190D9 vs P47N k/d 2.0
190D9 vs La7 k/d 1.06
190D9 vs Spit 16 k/d 1.53
109K vs P51D k/d 2.0
109K vs P47N k/d 1.37
109K vs La7 k/d 1.44
109K vs Spit 16 k/d 1.57
From current tour...stats mean nada from a players perspective..take those SAME 109 drivers and put them in p51's and watch those numbers jump way up..they fly 109 for a more challenging ride..although i dont believe the 109 is porked at all (minus the flap argument) i can see both sides of the argument. Want some changes? have all the uber pilots drive la7's only for one tour and than check the bbs..u will see some serious whining :)
Htc has its hands full for sure trying to maintain equilibrium..a simple explanation for why the 109 flaps are not modeled would be nice, but i think the response from the players wouldnt be...
Jaxxo, I was approx. 2 to 1 in the currrent AvA in the Hurri I against the 109E. I am average at best. So if I turn your theory around I would do even better in the 109? ;) My hit % was pretty good, so maybe I could have made use of those FF's :D Seriously, I used the Hurri for shameless furballing and hardly ever watched my back. When I heard hits I just turned sharper until they ceased hitting me or shot me down. Liberating.
Good 109 fliers survive because the HAVE to be good. With a Spit you can jump in any fight, yank & bank score kills and even get away. In a 109 this is suicide. Your SA must be way better to keep an escape window open and those thick bars certainly don't help. You can rely on climb (and speed if you have a K4). But armament is weak and hard to aim. Stability is not nice but I'm not really a low-E fighter anyway so it doesn't bother me that much. Many times I was in a position where a Spit of P-51 would have given me a kill, but in a 109 I just could hit the guy I was fighting. And average as I may be, my gunnery isn't. But still, it all is historically correct.
So HTC, would you please look into the 109 stability issue and make the bars a bit thinner? I do love the Malcolm hood on my P-51B but I'd trade it for a normal view out of the 109.
-
" Leading edge separation of the 23-series section airfoils
Only 2° twist
Lack of sufficient torsional rigidity of the wing
The twist was only out to about 80% semi span, which also contributed to the tip stalling tendencies. "
Those reasons actualy explain why the changes were made in J22 -not why the wing of 190 was "bad". I'll explain it a bit.
Only 2deg twist ->Why more? It would start to have adverse effects on drag if it were more. That is enough to ensure even some warning of stall. Similar amount used in P51 and Spit, BTW)
Lack of torsional rigidity ->AFAIK the 190 had one of the stiffest wings of WW2 fighters. Small, with lots of metal resulting a rigid structure thus resulting in good rolling performance. I wonder how stiff wing the J22 has...
Twist only 80% semi span which contributed to tip stalling tendencies -> Hmmm. Due to sudden stall characteristics of 2300 NACA series the behaviour of the wing would not have been much better if the wing was twisted evenly to the tip as in Spitfire. Probably a feature to speed up the production with as little effect to flying characteristics and speed as possible.
FW's wing does twist in high speed turns (as any wing does!) which causes the wing to lose some of the advantages of its twist and this brings the stall characteristics of the 2300 series more pronouncedly evident in high speed turns/stalls.
As Mr Somebody pointed out in numerous threads before, the adjustment of FW's ailerons is critical to get a warning of imminent stall especially in high speed turns where the wing does warp and thus will not warn of the stall so readily with buffeting. If the ailerons are adjusted correctly the ailerons will give sharp nudges to controls as indication of imminent stall. In slower speeds the stall is gentle as the wing is not warping and the twist fully works as it should. The 190 is not exceptional in this sense. I'd say that the high speed stall characteristics of the 190 are more pronounced in those articles because the wing IS small so it needs to be pulled into more AoA to get the desired effect and because its thickness and profile it can be pulled, BUT the stall characteristics of that NAC profile are quite harsh as they are for P51's laminar profile too. But that is a trade off for less drag in level flight.
***
"The P-38 stall and spin model does NOT match the test pilot reports by ANY of the Lockheed test pilots. In fact, it isn't even close."
I find it impossible that a code used in this kind of games could simulate the behaviour of the actual wing in such incalculable situation as a stall (especially accelerated stall). It should be "made" into model and that would require first hand knowledge of how the actual a/c behaves in the type of stall in question. Rather impossible requirement if the description of a stall is not very accurately documented. And that would have to be made for every a/c in the game. I bet that that what we have now is just what the code makes out of it after calculating the force vectors and considering the effects of wing geometry upon entering and exiting the stall.
***
On flaps: It would be nice to know if I'm correct in suspecting that using flaps will increase the profile lift but in turn in maneuvers might actually reduce the max allowable AoA of the wing profile?
It probabaly also makes a big difference what kind of flaps the a/c has. Eg. the split flap in FW or Spit would not assist turn very well, whereas the 109's or P51's flaps are better in this sense and the fowlers of P38 are even better because they increase the wing area upon extending and the resulting wing profile has smoother transitions that those of 109 and P51. The structure and mechanical endurance of these flaps is different too, of course, probably the other way around.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
5. The effects of compression are modeled well below 20,000 feet, while no pilot ever interviewed says it was a problem. Most P-38 pilots say you could dive a pre J-25-Lo model from 20,000 feet with impunity, and a post J-25-Lo model from over 25,000 feet easily.
Just an FYI. We had a WWII P-38 pilot in the game. I got to talk to him in great length one day and he told me a story about how he and his wingman got into a serious scuffle and due to overwhelming numbers decided it was best to run. They did a 1G dive to the deck (he said the best he could remember was the speed was around 600, but was not every really sure due to the severe shaking of the cockpit making it difficult to read the gauges) and the wingman could not make the pull-out, crash and died. He said if there had been a cow in the field, in his flight path, he would have hit it.
-
This is growing stale. Summon Mandoble!
-
Stale or not, it keeps coming up....
Charge: take a look at the PDF DoKGonzo linked. Its written by an aerodynamicist at a firm that uses sophisticated computer modelling to analyse airflow over airframes. In short, thsi company makes its living by providing predictive services to modern aircraft designers.
He used the systems to analyze airflow over the SPit, the D-pony, and the Dora. He has no vested interest in outcomes -- it was jsut a cool historical application of waht he does every day.
And he showed that the Dora would have suuden sharo stall tendencies at high Gs.
This impressed me, for a couple reasons. One, it passes the "smell test" of jsut making sense, and coming up with an answer that fits reports derived from entirely different methodology (like field testing by fighter pilots). Two, it does something important but not often encountered -- it explains apparetnly conflicting observations that previously have been mysterious, like a unified theory might do. Specifically, it explains why the US field tests which included "combat" at high G's) woudl report different stability characterisitics than the gently low spped handling described in British reports.
Interesting anyway....
-
i made a sarcastic comment earlier, part in jest, part in please let this all die, why keep ruffling feathers, whatever...
here is my serious take on the whole thing. seeing as the man who got me into the game, and generally started my flight sim carrer posted comments that are somewhat critical.
HiTech and Pyro have been modeling flight soms for how long? 10, 15 years? my guess is they have researched more than we can imagine in that time. i also assume they have poured alot of hours and money into obtaining and analizing data. have they seen or had translated every piece out there on every plane? i don't think it is possible.
HTC is a smaller company, and does not have the resources available to them that say the US air force has, so there will always be a percieved "lack" of data to support everything they create.
whatever they program, they would be foolish to just post or make available in some way ALL their findings, and data that supports it. why give out those years of work for free? just because i say bah i don't believe you, prove it, they should not have to bow to my wishes. if HTC were to make available free their entire archive, what is to stop someone from "borrowing" it for their own uses, without permission, and without cost.
i would hazard a guess they have data none of us have seen here. data on every plane they have modeled. i have this image of a file room at the HTC office, full wall to wall with bookshelves filled with reports, filght manuals, and other data. heck even at their houses i bet there's stuff. 15 years of researching a topic lends to having alot of things to sift through. add to that new data posted here, that they have to find. what i mean is, sure a page from a book may be scanned then posted. HTC can't very well base assumptions on just they. they must find the book, and get rights to the data to use and archive it i am guessing.
now take all that, and make a performance chart. when you have 2 documents that contradict each other, what do you do? believe just the "good" one? no you end up looking for another thing that backs up one or the other original finding. then you find another, and another, so on.
i could be wrong here, but imagine there is a spectrum from uber to sucky for each plane. there is something HTC actually owns that proves each point. where do you make the performance line go? personally i would take all the data, then use the average of all of it, good and bad.
in reality i think that is the best anyone could do. cold hard facts are rare in the world.
think of it this way. the only way to get accurate flight model data is to travel back in time, and run exacting tests of just what you need on the actual planes piloted by the best pilots of that plane. even if you did that, i bet you could get 3 different results from 3 "exact" planes. look at skuzzy's anecdote. 2 pilots, same plane. 1 crashes, 1 makes it. yes pilot skill comes into play, but also, maybe that plane that crashed just didn't hold together as well as the other.
so what have i concluded about all of this? i think HTC has taken the information they have available, and done the best they can with it. you have the right to not agree, but not the right to claim they are lying about something. yes people lie, but unless HTC as a company are just compulsive voss like liars, what would they have to gain?
well take it for what it's worth. thats just my thoughts on this. oh and 42, bro, i see your side, i also see the other, and just thought i'd say what i thought after all these years.
-
The file DokGonzo posted shows the problem with AH's 190. In real life, the 190 only had these problems at high speed, and no problems at low speed. It is exactly the opposite in AH. You can do whatever you want as long as you're above 300mph, but drop below 250 and watch out!
-
Originally posted by Simaril
This is stunning to me. It really explains why there are divergent reports, and reinforces the idea that the 190 had sudden stall tendencies (esp under G loads).
It also supports the current flight model for the 190s.
With the exception that in AH2 the snap-stall happens even at low speeds and low load conditions. Where the wing deformation can't possibly be setting in (i.e. pulling over the top of a loop).
-
"Charge: take a look at the PDF DoKGonzo linked. Its written by an aerodynamicist at a firm that uses sophisticated computer modelling to analyse airflow over airframes."
I know D. Lednichers article very well. Not exactly the first time I see it... ;)
-C+
-
So... real 190's would flop under high G's at high speeds, but were nice and gentle at low speeds. Our 190's are nice and gentle anywhere above 300mph, but flop like a beached flounder at low speeds. Did we get the bizarro world 190 FM or something?
In conclusion, fix my 109's flaps :furious
-
Originally posted by wetrat
So... real 190's would flop under high G's at high speeds, but were nice and gentle at low speeds. Our 190's are nice and gentle anywhere above 300mph, but flop like a beached flounder at low speeds. Did we get the bizarro world 190 FM or something?
In conclusion, fix my 109's flaps :furious
LMAO wetrat, you fail to understand that 109s won't NEED flaps if they fix the instability issue! :P
-
Originally posted by Krusty
LMAO wetrat, you fail to understand that 109s won't NEED flaps if they fix the instability issue! :P
109's don't have a stability issue. IMO, they're modeled correctly. 190's are fubar.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
So... real 190's would flop under high G's at high speeds, but were nice and gentle at low speeds. Our 190's are nice and gentle anywhere above 300mph, but flop like a beached flounder at low speeds. Did we get the bizarro world 190 FM or something?
In conclusion, fix my 109's flaps :furious
Well the 190 does snap-stall at high speeds like it's supposed to. If you've ever been de-acking a field in a 190 and seen a last second upper, and tried to crank it over fast to get him, you know that the next thing you see is you becoming an upside-down lawn dart.
I'm pretty sure the 109 flaps will be fixed in the next update. Pyro said it should have been in the latest one but was accidentally omitted (due to payoffs from the Supermarine rep' ... d'oh!).
-
wetrat, how can you say that? The 109s in this game are completely unstable at all speeds, flight positions, orientations, engine settings, and all alignments of the planets!
None of this is reported ANYwhere in ANY document historically. It's BS. Get rid of the BS instability, and the need for flaps is gone.
-
Without combat trim the G-14 and K-4 can be flown fairly slow and stable, it is more work to fly trimming manually. I believe combat trim does not do a good job of trimimg these planes out for slow speed flight.
-
I rarely use CT, especially on 109s. That doesn't affect the "flop" problem.
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
i made a sarcastic comment earlier, part in jest, part in please let this all die, why keep ruffling feathers, whatever...
here is my serious take on the whole thing. seeing as the man who got me into the game, and generally started my flight sim carrer posted comments that are somewhat critical.
HiTech and Pyro have been modeling flight soms for how long? 10, 15 years? my guess is they have researched more than we can imagine in that time. i also assume they have poured alot of hours and money into obtaining and analizing data. have they seen or had translated every piece out there on every plane? i don't think it is possible.
HTC is a smaller company, and does not have the resources available to them that say the US air force has, so there will always be a percieved "lack" of data to support everything they create.
whatever they program, they would be foolish to just post or make available in some way ALL their findings, and data that supports it. why give out those years of work for free? just because i say bah i don't believe you, prove it, they should not have to bow to my wishes. if HTC were to make available free their entire archive, what is to stop someone from "borrowing" it for their own uses, without permission, and without cost.
i would hazard a guess they have data none of us have seen here. data on every plane they have modeled. i have this image of a file room at the HTC office, full wall to wall with bookshelves filled with reports, filght manuals, and other data. heck even at their houses i bet there's stuff. 15 years of researching a topic lends to having alot of things to sift through. add to that new data posted here, that they have to find. what i mean is, sure a page from a book may be scanned then posted. HTC can't very well base assumptions on just they. they must find the book, and get rights to the data to use and archive it i am guessing.
now take all that, and make a performance chart. when you have 2 documents that contradict each other, what do you do? believe just the "good" one? no you end up looking for another thing that backs up one or the other original finding. then you find another, and another, so on.
i could be wrong here, but imagine there is a spectrum from uber to sucky for each plane. there is something HTC actually owns that proves each point. where do you make the performance line go? personally i would take all the data, then use the average of all of it, good and bad.
in reality i think that is the best anyone could do. cold hard facts are rare in the world.
think of it this way. the only way to get accurate flight model data is to travel back in time, and run exacting tests of just what you need on the actual planes piloted by the best pilots of that plane. even if you did that, i bet you could get 3 different results from 3 "exact" planes. look at skuzzy's anecdote. 2 pilots, same plane. 1 crashes, 1 makes it. yes pilot skill comes into play, but also, maybe that plane that crashed just didn't hold together as well as the other.
so what have i concluded about all of this? i think HTC has taken the information they have available, and done the best they can with it. you have the right to not agree, but not the right to claim they are lying about something. yes people lie, but unless HTC as a company are just compulsive voss like liars, what would they have to gain?
well take it for what it's worth. thats just my thoughts on this. oh and 42, bro, i see your side, i also see the other, and just thought i'd say what i thought after all these years.
What puzles me is that after so many years of experience, In the latest version of the game the BF-110 is be the best German WW2 dogfighter and the Ta-152 is the worst .
This bothers me.
-
Combat trim is fine in 109's; the only time I trim anything manually is at high speeds, when you need to trim to get any kind of elevator authority. Other than that, I leave it on. It requires a certain touch to keep them from flopping around, but once you figure it out, it's not difficult at all. I have absolutely no trouble with snaprolls at all, and I routinely fight with it under 200mph. And you can't say that I'm not well versed in the ways of the 109... I should hit 800 kills in the K4 if I fly tonight.
"Me 109 G:
"It was very advanced and equipped with new, more sophisticated technology. Nicknamed Gustav, the 109G was well armed, but not as light as the early E and F versions. Its more powerful engine meant higher power settings whose initial climb rate sent it soaring to 18700 feet in six minutes, but at low speed the plane was difficult to handle."
- Major Gunther Rall in April 1943. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Gunther Rall, a memoir."
-
No doubt he's talking torque. Same thing with the F4u... which in this game has almost no torque... hrm... Nope... the 109s are just "broken" in this game. Other planes that had high torque have no torque handling effects, only the 109s... so if that's the problem the 109s need to be modeled to the same standards as the rest of the game, not with their own set :)
-
Krusty: Torque is modeled very accuratly in the game. People tend to think torque is what cause the f4u to flip, it wasn't the primary force.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by JAWS2003
What puzles me is that after so many years of experience, In the latest version of the game the BF-110 is be the best German WW2 dogfighter and the Ta-152 is the worst .
This bothers me.
oh hush you luftwhiner!!!! there you go making sense again. sheesh, the nerve of some people.
-
Originally posted by JAWS2003
What puzles me is that after so many years of experience, In the latest version of the game the BF-110 is be the best German WW2 dogfighter and the Ta-152 is the worst .
This bothers me.
Perhaps because "dogfighting" ability was not a principle design consideration for German engineers, yet our Main Arena environment disproportionately favors planes with strong dogfighting abilities.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by parin
Without combat trim the G-14 and K-4 can be flown fairly slow and stable, it is more work to fly trimming manually. I believe combat trim does not do a good job of trimimg these planes out for slow speed flight.
i am in agreement.
-
I wasn't referring to plain flat turn fight. I was talking about "dog fighting" in general. Close in air combat.
But what do you think, should the big clumsy BF-110 be better at this than BF-109 or FW-190?
-
Originally posted by hitech
People tend to think torque is what cause the f4u to flip, it wasn't the primary force.
HiTech
Would that be P-factor & Slip stream? And do you model that?
-
Big, clumsy 110? 190 and 109? I thought this was about the Ta152 vs. the 110? Stop changing the subject and loading your questions.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by JAWS2003
I wasn't referring to plain flat turn fight. I was talking about "dog fighting" in general. Close in air combat.
But what do you think, should the big clumsy BF-110 be better at this than BF-109 or FW-190?
i dont think anyone is suggesting the 110 is better than the 190 or 109.
if you're basing these facts on score cards, think again.
with equal pilot, the 109E will destroy any model 110. the 190 is far beyond that.
dont confuse planes that are used consistantly for vulching, base capture and porking as being 'good allround dogfighters'.
PS: leviathn, i think you telling people not to 'load' questions is a little rich :p
-
Originally posted by hitech
Ill state it as plainly as I can.
We never have nore ever will adjusted models based on the country of origen.
HiTech
I don't think you tweek by country, but I would like to ask a question...
I often hear and read quotes stating that the FW190-A was able to consistantly out turn and generally out perform the Spitfire V at lower altitudes. (Most recently on History Channel 'Century of Warfare: Air war 1943-45')
I have also seen remarks in books and on the internet that say that the constant improvements to the Spitfire were a direct result of being out-performed by the 190's. And that up until the Spit IX, the spitfire was not competitive with the 190.
Contrast that with AH where the FW190-A5 clearly the best turning 190 in the game has virtually no chance of holding on to a spitfire V in any mode of flight (excluding final approach to landing).
Mustang Pilots comment often about the 190-D models turning right along with them and really being a chore to deal with. Not just rocketing in with no ability to turn like we see them in AH. The Dora is a very severe task-master in AHII (although far improved from AHI).
Why is there so much documentation out there to support these aircraft being often superior at best, and at worst, equal to the Allied aircraft and yet the AH planes are practically unmanagable. The P51 flies like a dream in AH, and so to all of the spitfires, but every single Fw190 and bf109 requires very cautious control.
It just seems like a disconnect.
-
you're just so wrong it untrue kurt.
first off, the 190A did out peform the spitfiremk5 in all aspects EXCEPT radius of turn.
Secondly, a 190D will turn with a P51, you just have to know how to fly it.
How many real pilot in WW2 do you think would spend the majority of their time fighting with the throttle fully open?
thirdly, the 190 A5 'flies like a dream' too.
And finally, the Luftwaffe pilots in WW2, being of considerably more experience and skill than the vast majority of allied pilot, knew how to fly their planes to its advantage. You quite simply need to go and do some training before you continue with these statement.
Film of 2 190A5s being bounce by 2 higher hurricane 2c: http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/2190VS2hurriC.ahf
this isnt even an example of great flying, just simply working your advantages.
quite clearly the 190 out performs in every aspect except radius of turn.
learn to fly better/smarter.
-
Originally posted by JAWS2003
I wasn't referring to plain flat turn fight. I was talking about "dog fighting" in general. Close in air combat.
But what do you think, should the big clumsy BF-110 be better at this than BF-109 or FW-190?
If you are refering to high altitude ETO battles, the most valuble manuver was "split S and dive for the clouds". Not so heroic but very effective. 190s were best at it for a while and that's why they were considered harder to shoot down than 109s (from the books I read at least). What could the 110 offer? big target that rolls slowly and not very fast, who cares about stall or turn?. Real life promoted the dweebiest flying, by elimination.
Turn, acceleration, climbrate were all nice to have compared with fast roll and dive ability. At low altitudes that is another story. I think that in the low alt russian front, 109s were more successful than 190s for that reason. That is the impression I got at least.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
you're just so wrong it untrue kurt.
do you think would spend the majority of their time fighting with the throttle fully open?
And finally, the Luftwaffe pilots in WW2, being of considerably more experience and skill than the vast majority of allied pilot, knew how to fly their planes to its advantage. You quite simply need to go and do some training before you continue with these statement.
Film of 2 190A5s being bounce by 2 higher hurricane 2c: http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/2190VS2hurriC.ahf
learn to fly better/smarter.
What a delightfully pretentious post!
I know how to operate the controls. And I control the throttle, the rudders and the stick.
If the Luftwaffe had these uber skilled pilots flying the Dora, would you like to tell me why they were having to train pilots out of the Hitler Youth due to the fact that most of the good ones were dead by the time 1944 came around?
I guess you looked at my score and decided how I fly, and if I looked at my score these last few months I'd be convinced that I'm a newbie too (been here for a few years was KurtVW before). If thats what you did, take a moment and notice I've been lucky to get 10 hours a month lately. I'm not as cruddy as you are assuming.
Cripes... Throttle... Like you're the only one who knows about it...
-
First of all, I dont think it is fair to quote only half of what i type and then trash the statements. without the whole post my comments do not make the sense i intended.
Originally posted by Kurt
What a delightfully pretentious post!
thanks
I know how to operate the controls. And I control the throttle, the rudders and the stick.
i never once stated that you did not, merely that your statements are untrue. thats not my opinion, its a simple fact
If the Luftwaffe had these uber skilled pilots flying the Dora, would you like to tell me why they were having to train pilots out of the Hitler Youth due to the fact that most of the good ones were dead by the time 1944 came around?
do you expect me to believe that EVERY single german ace from pre-1944 was dead at the time in question? they trained from the hitler youth because they were short of *replacements*, not totaly out of experienced pilots. the rookies would die, and be replaced with rookies
I guess you looked at my score and decided how I fly, and if I looked at my score these last few months I'd be convinced that I'm a newbie too (been here for a few years was KurtVW before). If thats what you did, take a moment and notice I've been lucky to get 10 hours a month lately. I'm not as cruddy as you are assuming.
no sir, i did not look at your score. I looked at your comments in the post i replied to, and answered. i dont value the scoring method here, and i dont judge a virtual pilot by thier score card for the most part. I meant no intentional offence to you or your flying. I know for a fact you are not a noob, i'm not blind as well as pretentious
Cripes... Throttle... Like you're the only one who knows about it...
well it would seem that you do not know exactly what you're doing with it in the luftwaffe rides. If you are willing i would be most happy to spend a few hours with you in the DA to help you get to grips with the 190s or the 109s.
Sir, i meant no offence, you are just incorrect in your views. Did you even watch the film i linked? it clearly depicts two 190s being attacked by two high hurricanes, working the advantages of the 190 for a few minutes, and finishing with two dead hurricanes and two unscratched 190s.
bat
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
the 109s are uber easy to get kills in.
the 190 A5 kicks the spit16s bellybutton in the general MA standards.
the 262 is the best plane in the game to get kills and stay alive in.
the C205/202 are uber.
the ME163 is stupidly overmodeled.
the tiger is almost the hardest thing to kill in the game.
the ju88 carries the second largest bomb load in the game.
the stuka can outturn a zeke.
That just about nulifies any claims that LW/AXIS is porked imo.
And as to the 'political' or 'business' argument.....
just HOW MANY squads made up of US players are honouring real WW2 LW squadrons?
you think JGXX means 'Jovial Guys'?
pfffffft.
learn to fly, and/or stop basing your theories on the stupid modeling of the IL2 series from maddox games. that set of games is for people who like eye candy but are afraid of ACMs.
my 2c.
With the exception of the 262 and the Tiger, I'd say put down the crack pipe :confused:
Learning how to fly is a good advise, however. Follow it. Cherry picking in a 190 or ganging in a 109 is not ACM.
-
quite honestly ded, with the exception of the c202 being uber, my statements are correct. but i wouldnt expect you to understand, i saw what happens when ur not in a spitfire.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by dedalos
With the exception of the 262 and the Tiger, I'd say put down the crack pipe :confused:
Learning how to fly is a good advise, however. Follow it. Cherry picking in a 190 or ganging in a 109 is not ACM.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Krusty
There's just problems with several key flight models, the WORST being the ones that get complained about so much (the LW rides).
Um, Mossie. Far more porked than any Fw190 in AH.
Not that I hold it against HTC. I tried to dig up the data needed to unpork it and while I do have some info on it, it isn't in charts really and is by extrrapolating data.
The only hard Mossie issue is known by HTC already and should be fixed whenever the Mossie gets redone.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
With the exception of the 262 and the Tiger, I'd say put down the crack pipe :confused:
Learning how to fly is a good advise, however. Follow it. Cherry picking in a 190 or ganging in a 109 is not ACM.
that's a fact.
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #5
-
Heres what the LW whiners need.
(http://asmallvictory.net/archives/wahmbulance.jpg)
-
Originally posted by YUCCA
Heres what the LW whiners need.
Yucca...
Don't be so tough on 'em. Those leather panties gotta chafe something fierce. :)
-
Originally posted by Suave
This is growing stale. Summon Mandoble!
ROFLOL, sorry, I'm already summoned somewhere else.
-
I can't wait for the next update so we can argue about something different.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I can't wait for the next update so we can argue about something different.
Yeah, this one is stale. Fix the damn flaps already so I can beat a new horse :furious
-
Originally posted by YUCCA
Heres what the LW whiners need.
(http://asmallvictory.net/archives/wahmbulance.jpg)
I see that those tires are obviously undersized, engine underpowered and turning behaviour altered by an high CoG .... prety useless in the Main and above all in an historical scenario :rofl
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Um, Mossie. Far more porked than any Fw190 in AH.
Mossieeeeee!!!:)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Um, Mossie. Far more porked than any Fw190 in AH.
Not that I hold it against HTC. I tried to dig up the data needed to unpork it and while I do have some info on it, it isn't in charts really and is by extrrapolating data.
The only hard Mossie issue is known by HTC already and should be fixed whenever the Mossie gets redone.
mossie was a light bomber not only attack plane,
Should be threated like IL2, i would like to have it with outside view, uppin CAPed bases and HO vulchers with those Hisbozukas:)
-
the "bomber" version had no forward armaments. If you want that, sure I say give it the F3 view. The version WE have is the figher/bomber, no different than the p47 fighter/bomber, or the a20g fighter/bomber. It should not have F3 enabled.
-
I don't think any aircraft should have anything but in-cockpit views.
-
Originally posted by Brooke
I don't think any aircraft should have anything but in-cockpit views.
Agreed. Those F3 views are silly. So the pilot can't see a damn thing in IL2's.... good, they couldn't see anything in the real world either.