Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Possi on September 10, 2001, 05:33:00 AM
-
Hi all,
here is a Video from a Bf109G-6 in Germany from 07.09.2001.This is a 60%-70% Rolls and she flying 400-500km/h and she rolls very fast and she can roll faster,so a completely roll in 3 Sec. is not a Problem :q
Bf109G-2 Rolls (http://home.t-online.de/home/bill_gates/capture.mpg)
Copyright by Bert Hartmann
Check this out!The Pilot forget to watch the NACA Paper before it loose-flew,this why he rolls so fast sorry for that...
(http://www.invasionworks.com/zapper/smilies/owp.gif)
[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Possi ]
[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Possi ]
-
Very nice :)
-
Aww, this is just sad.
SOB
-
Nice video anyway :)
-
And this was done with a war time load out of guns, ammunition and fuel?
Thought so.
Westy
[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]
-
Originally posted by Westy MOL:
And this was done with a war time load out of guns, ammunition and fuel?
Thought so.
Westy
[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]
LOL (http://www.contrabandent.com/pez1/cwm/cwm3d/3dbiggrin3.gif)
-
Westy you won't see much diff whether this plane was hauling ammo or not. Rollrate is only drastically affected if there is extra weight on the wings. Besides, did WW2 planes ever run out of ammo and fuel???
That is a very cool video and it certainly makes me re-think my stance on what the 109 can do. I have never seen anyone take their precious 109 into turns like that. Thanks possi!
Currently you cannot execute a roll like that in Aces High even with no ammo and low fuel.
[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: fscott ]
-
This Video shows how the 109 in aces high does not roll as it should compared to how it does in IL2.
I'd say the proof is in the pudding. ;)
-
Oleg makes Possi horny.
-
400KMH translates to about 250MPH by my calculations.
Last time I flew a 109G2, it rolled very well at those speeds... pretty much like that 109.
Hmmm.
-SW
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
400KMH translates to about 250MPH by my calculations.
Last time I flew a 109G2, it rolled very well at those speeds... pretty much like that 109.
Hmmm.
-SW
You dont mean this 109 from AH?
After that Flyshow i test the G2 from AH oh man this to far a Way from Real!
-
I just did a flyby at 410km/h in IL-2 and then pulled hard left.
It looked exactly like the video. No ammo and 25% fuel.
BTW, it's kinda nice to see some evidence to back up Tsagi and VVS reports. I'm convinced.
[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: fscott ]
-
Did look pretty nice, but also nothing the AH 109 is incapable of.
-
Originally posted by Fatty:
Did look pretty nice, but also nothing the AH 109 is incapable of.
You are right AH109 is not a Bf109!
-
why won't it play for me, the video i mean?
A window media player window opens and it just sits there??
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
why won't it play for me, the video i mean?
A window media player window opens and it just sits there??
Update the Player or delete and reinstall it.
-
(http://www.raf303.org/funked/ag00290_.gif)
[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
lol. Funked. You grew your hairout !? ;)
So, developers should now progress from making FM's by 'feel' and what they think they should be (sans actual tests) to making them match the visuals in a video.
......WAIT!!!
They did that already!! Microsoft produced "Crimson Skies" didn't they? ;)
Westy
-
(http://www.invasionworks.com/zapper/smilies/dsc_omaha.gif)
(http://www.themelee.com/smilies/s/games/lufia/lufia1/lu1daos.gif)
-
Eagler...the same happened for me. Just right-click on the link and "save target as" to save the file to your desktop. You should be able to play it from there.
SOB
-
Originally posted by Possi:
You are right AH109 is not a Bf109!
Neither is the IL-2 109 you dud. They are both digital representations, one based on real world data... the other is well Il-2.
Why do you spend so much time over here trying to convince us (yourself) that Il-2 is better when both are based on two different types of test?
Fact of the matter is, AH is based on NACA tests while Il-2 is based on the fudge factor. "it doesn't quite match what these people are telling me... I'll go by 'feel'"
-SW
-
P.s. I see no basis what so ever for your specs Possi in your first post. "This is a 60%-70% Rolls and she flying 400-500km/h and she rolls very fast and she can roll faster,so a completely roll in 3 Sec. is not a Problem"
But a roll in 3 seconds? Good cod a Blue whale rolls faster in molasses.
one mississippi.....
two mississippi........
three mississipi!!!!
Oh look. It rolled. ;)
Westy
-
Originally posted by SWulfe:
Neither is the IL-2 109 you dud. They are both digital representations, one based on real world data... the other is well Il-2.
Why do you spend so much time over here trying to convince us (yourself) that Il-2 is better when both are based on two different types of test?
Fact of the matter is, AH is based on NACA tests while Il-2 is based on the fudge factor. "it doesn't quite match what these people are telling me... I'll go by 'feel'"
-SW
The Point is the NACA is wrong!!!
You believe Paper or what you see and hear from Veterans Pilots from WW2 the fly a Bf109?
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/Forum35/HTML/002201.html (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/Forum35/HTML/002201.html)
-
In the interest of science, and because you IL-2 cheerleaders annoy me with your moronic cheerleading babble that shows a distinct lack of understanding what planes can do in AH... I bring you... A FILM!
Yes, an actual AH film that I just went and filmed offline. In it, I fly a 109G2 at 25% fuel with no ammo and attempt to replicate the corkscrew roll demonstrated in the film above.
And what did I find? I found that, of the three or four times I did this move, I was able to complete it in 2 to 3 seconds every time.
Here it is. (http://www.mcnoldy.com/TooSlow!.zip).
-- Todd/DMF
-
It's not about NACA, TsAGI tests it's about change.
People get used to flying an aircraft one way and they *hate* the idea of having to relearn it. They only submit to the new lesson when they are forced to.
Oleg says he will publish the russian tests soon. I see no reason to doubt him.
Even so, there will be many who will still stand by their own imagination of how the 109 should fly.
This video certainly goes a long way in convincing. I don't see how anyione can argue with the actual plane right in front of their eyes.
-
Originally posted by fscott:
This video certainly goes a long way in convincing. I don't see how anyione can argue with the actual plane right in front of their eyes.
Then how can you argue with the AH film I just posted replicating the move?
-- Todd/DMF
-
heres aquote from fscott from less than a week ago
Now the 109g2, that is a different matter. IMO the rollrate is too high. Hopefully this has been toned down a bit to reflect AVERAGE strength plots, versus the superhuman pilots who are seemingly at the controls of the 109g2.
Good gawd they must be exerting 120 lbs of lateral force to get that 109g2 to roll like that at high speeds...
-
The video goes a long way towards .... nothing.
And this really has nothing much to do with AH or IL2. It's all to do with eronious and laughable presumptions of a very few who have figured out that they know what the capabilities of an unarmed, low fuel load, rebuilt 55 year old plane is after watching a 15 second mpeg. I've seen P-47's, Spits, 51's and F4U's in films do the same.
I really think some of you just want something so bad you'll make up things to suit yourselves. In an attempt not to start a flame war I won't say how retarded a few of you sound.
But I find it a bit humorous though that each of you cultboys will even ignore remarks by Oleg that there are several items in error - even MISSING (like DRAG for the FM's above 175kmh) - in the flight model that will be changed for the official demno and release to come.
Westy
-
I really love this video.
I especially like that in-spite of the fact that the video itself is clipped, the audio transition is seamless. Especially after the first rollout where the engine noise never skips a beat despite the plane instantly changing direction and altitude.
Holy crap.. upon further review of the film... can't help but notice that the video is playing about twice as fast as the audio. I wonder why that is.
AKDejaVu
-
Zigrat. My statement from a week ago or so proves one thing, I am not as hard-headed and close-minded as some.
My assumptions are open to change. I have no problem looking at all the evidence. In this case I've done a little research sicne that time.
The wing area on the 109 is less than the 190. The total weight is of the 109 is less than the 190. The 109 has no extra weight on the wings such as guns/fuel/etc... The 190 has two cannon in the wingroots.
For a long time I always thought the 190 has much smaller wing area.
I know that factor alone does not constitute a faster rollrate, but there are other factors as well. And this video certainly adds convincing.
It will be even better to see the Tsagi tests.
A
-
http://downloads.ofmc.co.uk/mhvideo256.wmv (http://downloads.ofmc.co.uk/mhvideo256.wmv)
I want HTC to model this Spitfire!! NOt the bogus one in AH ;)
And actually Fscott, your post do prove one thing. You don't know what the hell your talking about and are wishy washy to the bone being swayed easily by nothing more than anecdote and heresay.
Remember WW2O? lol.
Westy
[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Holy crap.. upon further review of the film... can't help but notice that the video is playing about twice as fast as the audio. I wonder why that is.
Are you suggesting that AH's 109G-2 rolls too fast? ;)
-- Todd/DMF
-
Originally posted by Possi:
The Point is the NACA is wrong!!!
You believe Paper or what you see and hear from Veterans Pilots from WW2 the fly a Bf109?
I believe data over what someone says. No matter if they flew that plane FIFTY years ago or not.
You can do some pretty amazing things in a 190 versus Spitfire, like turn inside of him and shoot him down. Lots of 190 pilots did that during the war and it's recorded that way... One thing they failed to mention was pilot skill. They were probably shooting down someone who just got up for his first combat sortie.
So if we were to go by that pilot's account of what happened, all 190s would turn inside of Spitfires. Unfortunately for people like you Possi, there are such things as testing aircraft that ensures it isn't based on roadkill but fact.
-SW
-
Westy don't argue with me. I have an opinion, if you don't like it then I'm sorry.
Yes my opinion can change next week.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
I really love this video.
I especially like that in-spite of the fact that the video itself is clipped, the audio transition is seamless. Especially after the first rollout where the engine noise never skips a beat despite the plane instantly changing direction and altitude.
Holy crap.. upon further review of the film... can't help but notice that the video is playing about twice as fast as the audio. I wonder why that is.
AKDejaVu
Oh toejam you got me,this is a BIG German Propagandavideo to get this all AH-Player.
Hmm ,the sound goes more slowly to the microphone like the picture,i think this is Pyhsik or?! (http://www.contrabandent.com/pez1/cwm/cwm/eek2.gif)
I can´t believe it what i read here,oh my Good (http://www.duhspot.com/users/smiley/s/cwm/cwm/uhoh3.gif)
-
Possi, how the hell did they edit that video? Man them germans are far too smart for us dumb americans...
-
Hmm ,the sound goes more slowly to the microphone like the picture,i think this is Pyhsik or?!
Physics causes sound to be delayed to the microphone. It does not cause sound to be heard at half speed.
Is there a reason that the plane freezes in mid air while the remainder of the sound track plays out? Maybe its some kind of new physics?
AKDejaVu
-
Who's arguing Fscott? I simply think your a zipper heard and Possi is a troll. But that's just my opinion :)
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Physics causes sound to be delayed to the microphone. It does not cause sound to be heard at half speed.
Is there a reason that the plane freezes in mid air while the remainder of the sound track plays out? Maybe its some kind of new physics?
AKDejaVu
American Physik :)
-
BTW... its a 109 at an airshow. I'm sure they were rolling it at max speed there. Its pretty typical to stress the plane out at an airshow with a vintage aircraft.
As a matter of fact... I'm sure we should be able to grab any statistical ability information we need on the 109 from this aircraft. Afterall... its 100% accurate right?
This film highlights the desire for people to support Oleg's 109 FM at all costs. They must resort to such a cheesy hack of a video clip in order to maintain any hope that he is right. To be honest, its all they have to go on other than Oleg's word and right now its looking like its holding up about as well.
AKdejaVu
-
Westy, I'd like for you just ONE TIME point out where I have called someone else a name.
Please have more class because when you resort to insults and namecalling it simply shows that your arguement is dwindling.
Think about science. Theories are proven and disproven everyday. Great physicists will change their mind every week in light of new evidence or even the hint of new evidence. Are you calling these great men zipperheads and wishy washy also?
Since there is no absolute in the world of flight models, all of them, are well.. theories.
It is more ridiculous to grasp onto *one* "flight model" theory and then close your mind to all other theories.
And yes theories can be based upon "stats" and reports such as our beloved NACA flight tests.
Well, Oleg has another theory based upon Russian tests. And after looking at all the current evidence, this scientist is inclined to put more weight on Oleg's model.
Of which is toned down a tad in the latest beta BTW. But not much.
-
Reiterating DMF's post and my own, I still don't see what is in that film that cannot be done quite easily in Aces High.
-
.
[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Possi ]
-
.
[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Possi ]
-
Hacked video? hmm Dont have sound right now.
Looked fine to me however.
I really think that it is a good Idea to keep an open mind about flight models. For those that only stick to one brand X modeling technique, is to limit the possiblities that an overall conglomeration of Ideas that both companies have brought forth.
From this video, Id say that AH and IL2 both do a good job, It is just my opinon that the latter does a better job.
Somewhere between the AH FM and IL2 FM lay the best of both worlds most likely.
-Just my Thoughts
-
Hacked video? hmm Dont have sound right now.
Looked fine to me however.
You see only what you want to see... To meet any requirements you deam necessary at the time.
[list=a]- Who filmed this?
- Why is the person filming the tape speaking in English?
- Why does the plane freez 2/3 through the clip, while the audio keeps streaming?
- Why does the engine noise from the first pass keep going even though the video of the second pass has started (yep.. that "pyhsiks" that enables sound to transcend video clipping is amazing)[/list=a]
Know the source of your data. Know the source and collection method.
This film neither proves nor disproves anything in regards to accurate flight models in AH or Il-2. Any oppinion based on this film is highly distorted. Anyone willing to accept this film as an accurate portrayal of anything is obtuse.
AKDejaVu
-
Deja..
do you think it might be a conspiracy?
-
I'm not resorting to name calling Fscott because I've run out of anything to say or support my pov. I simply expressed in two short words that I think you've got a few screws loose seeing how every few weeks you constantly run back to these AH boards to a ridiculous toggle back and forth between "sim X...good!" and "simX...bad!" dance.
And after stating so factually that you never saw anyone in AH fly a 109 like that have you ignired Dead Man flying's question to you?
Hey! I can't fly a P-51 like this guy can! Whenever I do I stall, spin, black out and crash. The P-51 FM must be pOrKeD too!!!
http://www.jfs.no/film/mustang_display_lars_ness_258kbs.wmv (http://www.jfs.no/film/mustang_display_lars_ness_258kbs.wmv)
Westy
[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]
-
Deja..
do you think it might be a conspiracy?
Dunno why you'd call it a conspiracy.
I think the film is bogus. Anything beyond that is just people forming oppinions based on a completley bogus set of information.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
You see only what you want to see... To meet any requirements you deam necessary at the time.
[list=a]- Who filmed this?
- Why is the person filming the tape speaking in English?
- Why does the plane freez 2/3 through the clip, while the audio keeps streaming?
- Why does the engine noise from the first pass keep going even though the video of the second pass has started (yep.. that "pyhsiks" that enables sound to transcend video clipping is amazing)[/list=a]
Know the source of your data. Know the source and collection method.
This film neither proves nor disproves anything in regards to accurate flight models in AH or Il-2. Any oppinion based on this film is highly distorted. Anyone willing to accept this film as an accurate portrayal of anything is obtuse.
AKDejaVu
This Video is from "Bert Hartmann" and this is his Webside
http://www.unsere-luftwaffe.de/ (http://www.unsere-luftwaffe.de/)
-
hehe Deja.. are you kidding me or what? :p
I think that it may be quite obvious that the film had been taken at differnt times. Stop/start.... play then stop when plane is out of view and then start again. Etc..
As far as the speed of the playback, there is nothing unusual considering that if this is a small handheld with a very narrow FOV all the tracking of the aircraft will definatly seem to blur by.
Does anyone else understand what I am saying here?
:confused: :)
-
The audio matches the video exactly... problem is the video is running faster than the audio.
It isn't about starting or stopping or recording at different times. It's about the video running faster than it's audio.
No if's and's or but's... the video is faster than the audio.
-SW
-
Originally posted by highflyer:
Does anyone else understand what I am saying here?
Yes, and I agree with you, highflyer.
This whole fake vs. real film thing has thrown this thread way off of the point I was trying to make earlier, which is that what we see in the film in no way confirms IL-2's flight model. In fact, the AH 109 is equally capable of pulling similar moves in a similar timeframe.
So if, in fact, this film is doctored and sped up, then both IL-2 and AH need to rethink 109 roll rates.
-- Todd/DMF
-
That is so funny,the think this Movie is a Fake.
And i am a Alien to pick up Westy tonight,after that a big Invasion on USA with all my Alienfriends....we get you all out there :)
Oh the Invasionufos is a Bf109G-6 :p
-
Maybe there's just a slight language problem between you guys and Possi... so I'm gonna try in his native language.
Possi:
Es wurde schon ungefähr 10 Mal gesagt: Wir verkehren auf diesen Foren weil das hier ein Spiel ist, welches UNS Spaß macht und welches wir für so gut befinden, dass wir bereit sind monatlich Geld dafür zu bezahlen. Deine ständigen Versuche unser Spiel schlechtzureden gehen nicht nur mir ziemlich auf die Nerven.
Wie wärs wenn du einfach auf die IL2 Foren gehst und da deinen Spaß hast. Aber lass uns bitte auch unseren. Dankeschön.
Aber um das Thema dieses Threads kurz aufzugreifen: Ich und die meisten anderen hier geben nunmal mehr auf Zahlen als ein Flugmodell nach "Gefühl" und basierend auf einem ruckligen Videoclip. Und ja, wir geben hier auch mehr auf Zahlen als auf das was Leute erzählen, die damals die Maschinen geflogen sind.
Vor ein paar Monaten hat hier jemand ein Interview mit einem P47 Piloten gepostet, darin wurde gesagt, dass die P47 eine höhere Rollrate hatte als die 109 und die 190. Blödsinn, trotzdem beharrte der Mann darauf. Folge: Menschen können sich irren, besonders wenn etwas 50 Jahre her ist. Zudem haben diese Leute die Maschinen im Kampf bewegt. Das sind nicht dieselben Bedingungen wie bei einem richtigen Testflug, wie SeaWulfe schon geschrieben hat, es gibt Berichte wie Fw190 Maschinen eine engere Kurve geflogen sind als eine Spitfire, womöglich weil der Spitfire Pilot unerfahren war, oder einfach nicht die Muskelkraft hatte um seine Maschine so enge Kurven fliegen zu lassen, wie es möglich gewesen wäre.
Egal, du wirst mir sowieso nicht zustimmen. Also lass uns einfach in Ruhe und verschone uns mit deinen Versuchen uns einzureden, dass unser Spiel schlecht ist. Wir haben hier Spaß, und das wirst du nicht ändern. Punkt.
Translation:
It's been repeated ike 10 times, the guys here are frequenting this forum because WE are having fun in this sim, and we consider it good enough to pay to play, so stop trying to convince us that our game sucks.
Go to the IL2 BBS and have fun there, just leave us alone and let us have our fun here. Thanks.
Back on topic of this thread:
Most of us indeed prefer numbers and figures rather than "feel" and a 15 sec movieclip to argue about the accuracy of a flight model. And we also prefer numbers and figures over real life accounts by pilots who flew in the war.
A couple of months back someone posted an interview with a well known P47 pilot. He kept mentioning that his P47 could outroll both the 109 and the 190. There's no proof for that in ANY test ever done, still he kept insisting that it's been that way.
People can be wrong, especially when talking about things that happened 50 years ago. Also, these men flew their machines under combat conditions which can in no way be compared to testflight conditions. As SeaWulfe said there're reports of 190s turning inside Spitfires, possibly because the Spitfire pilot was on his first combat mission or just didn't have the physical abilities to turn his plane as fast as it could have.
But because you're not going to agree anyway, just leave us alone with your lame attempts to convince us that AH sucks, we're having fun here, period.
-
This film HASN'T been altered from what I can see (trust me Deja).
However, this 109 doesn't do anything amazing, it does a rudder assisted roll - almost a snap roll. And thats all.
I use the same technique to get better roll rates in the tiffie (which in AH ARE spot on according to all the text I've checked).
If you do this in AH you'll get the same result.
This video proves nothing except that Possi has no idea what he is talking about. Nice video sure, but an almost-snap roll is not what test data is based on. And theres no way in hell you can accurately time the roll.
Sorry but no cigar. Next cheerleader please.
-
This 109 is porked that 109 is porked, the film is edited, no it isnt edited...
Who gives a rats butt?
:)
-
Originally posted by Possi:
Oh the Invasionufos is a Bf109G-6 :p
So now you've edited your first message to turn it from a 109G-2 into a 109G-6? Too bad you forgot to change the name of the link to the film. Be sure you change that too next time.
-- Todd/DMF
-
"That is so funny,the think this Movie is a Fake. And i am a Alien to pick up Westy tonight"
<shrug> I never said the clip is a fake. I think you're ability to surmise performance figures from it is ludicrous. I also think you post in the manner you do for attention. I have the time so I oblige.
As for picking me up tonight? Wear your best dress, red lipstick and ask to see Bubba when you're at the gate.
Westy
-
I never said this film was hacked.
Let me put it in very simple terms:
THE VIDEO PLAYS BACK FASTER THAN THE AUDIO.
So.. lets take an internet movie from an airshow that doesn't even have the video and audio sinked at the same rate and use it to judge an aircraft's rollrate.
Better yet.. let's use it to argue with each other about it. Even better... let's argue that AH can do that too.
Sheesh people. It's a fricking airshow. Think about what a pilot is going to be doing with his vintage WW2 plane at 2000 feet above the ground. Do you think it's going to be maximum anything?
Here's an idea... the plane is actually rolling slower than the video indicates. The transfer to quicktime (and compression) somehow screwed up the timing on the video and it plays back faster. This makes the plane look like it is rolling faster than it actually is. Is it rolling at a speed close to its maximum rate after accelerating the video? Maybe... but fastfowarding the tape does not mean it can actually roll that fast.
:rolleyes:
AKDejaVu
-
Im no video expert but the film looks like playback was going a li'l faster than normal speed to me. But that might be because of the zoom magnifiying the movement of the hand holding the camera.
[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Professor Fate ]
-
a) the video is playing correct - the sounds seems to be added afterwards
b) why do you think that a 109 has a horrible rollrate?
Think a bit:
The 109 is a very small, compact aircraft. The small wingspan and wingarea is basically very good for a quick rollrate.
But the 109 in AH rolls worse than fighter with almost twice the wingarea and 20% larger wingspan...
The 109 has some design disadvantages too, and i don´t expect a rollrate of 180°/sec. But I just don´t want to believe that such a small and compact fighter rolls worse than aircrafts which are almost twice as big.
Everyone is talking about naca test for the 109? Where is it? I´ve never seen it before.
I mean testdata for a 109G, not E btw.
btw the aircraft was the G6 of the Messerschmitt Stiftung in Manching, and not a G2. Damn i missed the family day :(
niklas
[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: niklas ]
-
a) the video is playing correct - the sounds seems to be added afterwards
The sound is at the correct rate (you can hear it). If you don't believe me.. record your voice and play it back at a slower speed and notice the difference.
The sound is also accurate for the passes being made. The same number of aproaches/departures and things seem to generally be there. The only problem is that it plays at a different speed. You can notice a voice played back at 2/3 speed... these voices seem normal.
Tell me how you can determine the plane is being played back at a normal speed?
b) why do you think that a 109 has a horrible rollrate?
Nobody is saying it has a horrible rollrate. I know I'm not.
What I am saying is this video is not something people should be using to measure that rollrate. And it is definately not something that proves that the 109 is modeled correctly.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by niklas:
a) the video is playing correct - the sounds seems to be added afterwards
b) why do you think that a 109 has a horrible rollrate?
You may be correct on point A. I listened to the audio and watched the video 3 or 4 times and I thought it was actually the right audio but the video portion was playing back faster. The audio fades out as it should when the plane is at certain points in the video... unfortunately it plays the audio for the clip late and is longer than the clip itself.
As for point B. I don't think anyone said the 109 should be a bad roller. It certainly should not be the best, but it's faster than a Spitfire for sure (both in AH and real world).
Wing area, wing length and aircraft size all play a part in how a plane rolls. But don't forget the ailerons, without those lil' doodads your plane would never roll. Their placement, size and how much air they 'deflect' or 'catch' plays a very big part of a roll rate.
The ailerons on the 190 are almost twice the size of the 109 in both length and depth into the wing. They are also placed at the wingtips rather than just after the wingtips as is the case with the 109.
It's at high speeds that the 109's roll rate goes to crap (as with any plane... once you hit a certain speed the plane has too much air moving too fast over the wings)
Anyway, that's how it works.
-SW
-
@Redwing
Ok,also ich will euch nicht bekehren oder das Spiel schlecht machen,ob jemand gefällt muss er immer selbst entscheiden.Die Streitigkeiten kommen aus vielen Diskussionen um das Flugmodell.Das die NACA Daten falsch sind oder auch falsch verstanden wurden liegt auf der Hand,das kommt aber nicht von mir sondern von anderen Leuten die wirklich Ahnung haben.
Das Flugmodell der Bf109 und Fw190 ist dadurch ebenfalls falsch.
Aber die Arroganz die einen hier entgegensteht ist unglaublich,zum Glück sind es nur eine paar Handvoll AH-Junkies.
Das die Amis Spiele rausbringen wo der Deutsche immer der Verlierer ist,ist ja fast normal,darüber regt sich keiner mehr auf.
Was ich schon für Beweise gebracht habe,aber nein die NACA ist das Heiligtum,das ist völliger Blödsinn.Wenn die Bf109 so in echt wie AH geflogen wäre hätte sie niemals die Zulassung erhalten.
Endlich kommt mal eine Flugsim wo das FM realistischer umgesetzt wurde und ja ich rede von IL-2.Aber das haben die bösen Kommunsisten gemacht die ja noch heute das Feinbild eines durchschnittlichen Schulgebildeten Amerikaners ist.
Dann wird Probe geflogen(Demo) und schon merken die ,ob´s das geht ja einfach,dann wird wieder das Heiligtum rausgeholt wo eine Bf109G-2 mit einer Bf109G-G/R6 verwechselt wurde oder aus einer Fw190A-4 eine A-8 gemacht wurde.Sogar die Vorflügel sind nirgends zu sehen nicht mal in AH,geschweige denn eingearbeitet.
IL-2 ist in allen besser,im FM,Grafik,Schadensmodell einfach eben alles,ja sogar im Multiplay ist es möglich das über 120 Spieler online fliegen können wenn alle ein super Connect(Kabel)haben und eine guter Server bereit steht.
Aber AH hat nur eine sehr kleiner Fangemeinde.
Doch jetzt müssen alle zukünftigen Simhersteller umdenken und den neuen Standart des FM von IL-2 sich anschauen,was die auch hundertpro machen und darauf kannste Gift nehmen.
Sonst werden die von der größeren Fangemeinde aufs Korn genommen.
Über AH wird schon überall gelacht aber naja ich will nicht zu böse sein.Werdet glücklich
damit.
Da mein Englisch nicht sooo toll ist werde ich es mal so stehen lassen und es nicht übersetzen,sonst hänge ich noch morgen Früh am PC.
Bis später!
-
It certainly should not be the best, but it's faster than a Spitfire for sure (both in AH and real world).
Not according to the real world info I have seen.
-
Jesus guys who cares about the speed of the film and the audio.
LOOK at the entry and departure angles of when the roll is performed. That manoevre has a toejamload of rudder input as well as some vator. Its not a pure rolling manoevre.
Possi has just shown us his complete ignorance in this field. He doesn't know what hes talking about otherwise he wouldn't be stupid enough to post a video of a roll using rudder and vator input to flick the roll as a benchmark 109 roll performance. Otherwise if the Soviet TSAGI or whatever used rudder input in their rolltests then its no wonder the tests are so out of whack.
-
sag mal Possi wie naiv bist Du eigentlich?
Klar kann man über das eine oder andere streiten in AH, aber siehst Du nicht das AH unterm Strich doch eigentlich eine ganz faire Modellierung bietet, auch was dtsch. Flieger angeht (Wir reden jetzt allgemein, nicht nur über die Rollrate)
Bist Du echt so naiv und glaubst Du kriegst von den Russen eine "gute" 109, wohlgemerkt RELATIV zu den russischen Maschinen!!
Klar schmieren Dir die Russen Honig ums Maul, schließlich ist Deutschland der größte Markt für IL-2. Glaubst Du der Durchschnittsami oder tommi kauft ein Spiel wo keine P-51 oder Spit drin ist? Der harte Kern ja, aber doch nicht die Masse.... . Glaubst Du dem Durchschnittsami gefällt es ein Nazi oder Commi-Flugzeug zu fliegen??
Schau Dir doch an wie der absolute Mist wie die I-16 jetzt schon im Demo fliegt. Der Müll fliegt doch wie ein sauberes stabiles ausgereiftes Flugzeug. Noch nie so Sprüche aufgeschnappt wie wenn ne yak3 ne 109G6 in IL-2 trifft ist der Kampf vorüber bevor er begonnen hat? Noch nie die hoffnungslos übertriebenen Leistungsangaben gesehen von deren Maschinen?
Oh mann wenn Du meinst Il-2 wird fairer von der Modellierung dann liegst Du imo ganz schön falsch. Schau doch FH WB an, da zeigt sich doch ziemlich gut wie die am liebsten ihre Flieger modellieren... auf einmal ist von der "Akkuratheit" nix mehr zu sehen und die Geschenke werden freimütig vergeben...
Warum wird die Dora in IL-2 erst eingeführt mit dem yak-3 mit 107 Motor? D.h. das mit der ´44er Dora ein ´45er yak gegenübersteht der mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit so modelliert ist das er schneller ist, besser steigt, kurvt, vielleicht sogar rollt... . Siehst Du da keine Systematik??
Die Graphik von IL-2? Viel eyecandy, die Texturen verschwinden in 500m Abstand.
Das Cockpit ist realistisch, aber dadurch absolut unübersichtlich. Entweder Du siehst kaum was beim weiten Zoom oder Du mußt immer langsam runterscrollen. Il-2 bietet realistische Cockpits, ABER muß auch absolut UNrealistische Hilfsnummern links unten anbieten um Dich schnell mit den wichtigsten Infos zu versorgen. AH bietet alle Instrumente etwas unrealistisch zentral im Blickfeld an. Zwei unterschiedliche Lösungen für das gleiche Problem - ein Bildschirm kann nicht ein Cockpit ersetzten.
Die Vorflügel? Kurv doch mit ner 109 in AH mal, Du schaffst einen Vollkreis mit vollem Tank in ca. 18-19 sek. In Il-2 über 20 sek.
Schadensmodell im Demo ist doch eine Katastrophe und absolut lächerlich. Da braucht Du ja 3 Anflüge für ein geradeaus fliegendes Ziel, wohlgemerkt bei jedem Anflug Volltreffer ins Flugzeug.
Klar hat IL-2 auch sowas wie bewegliche Kühlerklappen, aber die Umsetzung im Code ist wohl eher ein Nachteil für die 109. Im Steigflug bei 100% geschlossen, Überhitzungswarnung nach 1 Minute na Prost...
Schon mal Dich im Hammerhead bei Il-2 auf den Kopf fallen lassen? Bist ruckzuck im Flachtrudeln bei Redout also hör mir auf...
Die P39 im Demo ist komplett daneben was die Flugeigenschaften angeht, KOMPLETT.
Die 109 kannst Du beim Start und Vollgas nach nur 4 (!!) Sekunden in der Luft ziehen, ohne Klappen, ich kann Dir Orginaldokus zeigen die 10-11 Sekunden angeben.
Eines mußt Du auch begreifen: Je komplexer ein Flugmodell, desto eher können auch Fehler oder "unvorgesehenes" Verhalten auftreten.
Das Demo stellt eine der saubersten 109 einer ziemlich komischen p39 gegenüber. Mir wäre es lieber gewesen ein La-5, 5F oder yak-1 oder 9 wäre im Demo gewesen. DAS wäre wesentlich aufschlussreicher gewesen was uns demnächst erwartet sage ich Dir!!
Gruss
niklas
-
Besides the fact that it doesn't look that 'fast', and it is virtually meaningless unless we get to see a real 190 do a same maneuver..
I think Vulcan is right here. That is not a pure roll. The pilot gains some speed after a shallow dive, pitches up pulls hard left and inputs lot of rudder. I've never tried it with an AH craft, but I've flown 109s exclusively since last few months, and am pretty sure that AH G2 and G6s simularly match that speed in that maneuver... also, 400~500km is no way a 'high speed' compared to 600~700km, where the historically claimed 'low aileron authority' of 109 is supposed to gush out.
The way I figure, the pilot in the clip was probably doing about 320~370 mph when he began to pull his pitch up, and when he bagan his roll, the speed was probably dropped to around 250~280mph. At this speed, the torque effect kicks in massively in 109. Anyone who ever flew a 109 in AH would know that. And besides, I use that maneuver all the time.
109 most usually rolls slow, so in a scissors fight, I change directions that way - instead of breaking the roll and go opposite, continue roll and naturally change directions. Believe me, that is not typicularly fast, and it also can be done.
-
@Niklas
Also die inoff. Demo ist ja verbugt,aber das kannste ja nicht wissen.Das FM,Schadensmodell ist nicht fertig,das merkt man ja auch in der Demo.Das betrifft auch die P-39,also mal abwarten.
Mit den schlechten russ. Maschinen sollte man auch das Gameplay etwas beachten sprich:Visir,ansonsten hat eine I-16 gegen eine Bf109F keine Chance.Wichtig auch das die KI der Russen bei Rookie erst realistisch wirken :)
Graf kam auch immer mit seiner Bf109G-2 angeschossen zurück gegen I-16 Luftkämpfe,also so ungefährlich war das auch nicht.Die Russen waren ja meistens Bedrunken im Flug :)Das kannste hier schlecht der KI beibringen oder die schlechte Ausbildung.
Mit den Instrumenten habe ich keinerlei Probleme mit dem Colliehead kann man es schnell ablesen,das links unten blende ich sogar immer aus :)
Die Überhitzung ist normal,erstens ist es nicht 1:1 umgesetzt(Überhitzung kommt schneller),zweitens kann man die Kühlerklappen manuel öffnen"R",was die damals auch taten.
Das das Flachtrudeln falsch ist wissen die schon und wird auch behoben.
Haste gewußt das man eine Bf109 schon mit 100km/h starten kann also abhebt?
Possi
-
Spitfires always outroll 109s after metal aelirons are introduce with the Spitfire MkV.
109s out roll early Spitfires that had cloth aelirons.
The video didn't look like anything special to me. The Il-2 109 will roll 2 or 3 times as fast. This hardly backs that up.
-
IL-2 Sturmovik= Good Off-line flight simulator. (Using VVS info)
Aces High= Good on-line only massive milti-player. (Using NASA info)
If you don't like one game and prefure to play other, then just play that game and shut up. Once Oleg posts his data then squeak and moan.
Possi go to simHQ and join their cheerleader squad.
fscott, don't state your opinion
;) about other sims on this board. Don't you know that you'll get flamed. :cool:
my negative 2 cents
-
Post deleted. Keep forgetting I'm reasoning with the demented.
[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: leonid ]
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
Spitfires always outroll 109s after metal aelirons are introduce with the Spitfire MkV.
109s out roll early Spitfires that had cloth aelirons.
You're right, I was looking at some data for the 109E-4 and Spitfire MkIa- not late war variants.
My mistake, sorry.
-SW
-
No one will ever know the true potential of the 109 rollrate.
*THAT* is a fact my friends.
-
Originally posted by fscott:
No one will ever know the true potential of the 109 rollrate.
Kind of like how WWIIOl has potential?
I mean, in theory it sounds great... but I'll be damned if it does anything worth a crap in practice.
-SW
-
Just couple notes. It can be seen that the plane yaws a lot during roll so what we see is a roll assisted by rudder and elevator ie. "snap roll" as called in aerobatics (not stalled). Also video seems to be a bit fast, a loop is very fast? And lastly it should be noted that there exists instrumented test data on the 109F roll rate but don't ask me how to get it.
gripen
-
I adjusted the video speed to match the audio:
Something that seems a bit better (http://www.dbstaines.com/Images/109toSound.AVI)
Amazing how things can be adjusted/skewed/misconstrued.
AKDejaVu
-
Possi, die unoffizielle hat nicht nur Bugs´, sie ist schlichtweg daneben.
Klar, öffne die Kühlerklappen ganz. Wozu wurde die 109 denn auf Bedienerfreundlichkeit und Automatismus ausgelegt? Das ich jetzt wieder manuell rummachen muß??
Schau Dir doch an wie die Steigrate und Höchstgeschwindigkeit in den Keller geht wenn Du mit offenen Klappen fliegst - klasse Lösung, ehrlich....
Keine aufgetankte aufmunitionierte beladene 109 hebt mit 100km/h ab. Wo haste denn den Schmarrn her? Ich glaub nicht mal die sehr leichte 109 vom Eichhorn hebt mit 100 ab.
niklas
-
Originally posted by niklas:
Possi, die unoffizielle hat nicht nur Bugs´, sie ist schlichtweg daneben.
Klar, öffne die Kühlerklappen ganz. Wozu wurde die 109 denn auf Bedienerfreundlichkeit und Automatismus ausgelegt? Das ich jetzt wieder manuell rummachen muß??
Schau Dir doch an wie die Steigrate und Höchstgeschwindigkeit in den Keller geht wenn Du mit offenen Klappen fliegst - klasse Lösung, ehrlich....
Keine aufgetankte aufmunitionierte beladene 109 hebt mit 100km/h ab. Wo haste denn den Schmarrn her? Ich glaub nicht mal die sehr leichte 109 vom Eichhorn hebt mit 100 ab.
niklas
Sage ich Dir gerne Niklas,von Johannes Steinhoff in seinem Buch(Die Strasse von Messina) Seite 113,4 Zeile steht geschrieben"Der Motor läuft auf höchsten Touren,der Fahrtmesser passiert die 100-km/h-Marke,die >>Me<< hebt ab.Kommt mir auch komisch vor,man kann das natürlich anderes ausslegen,das die Nadel zwar in dem Moment bei 100 Marke war aber er erst Sekunden später abhob als sie dann schon bei 160 war.
Aber denn hätte er ja geschrieben kurz darauf hob sie ab,hat er aber nicht,obwohl da ein Komma steht.
Und das mit den Kühlerklappen war eben so gewesen,die haben die immer manuell geöffnet und geschlossen,beim Start wurde der Proppeler auf 10,20 gestellt.
[ 09-11-2001: Message edited by: Possi ]
-
na wenn dieser wage Text deine Argumentationsbasis ist... Nix für ungut aber daraus zu schießen das die 109 bei 100 abhebt ist nun wirklich naiv. Ich wäre echt vorsichtig solche Behauptungen in den Raum zu stellen aufgrund von solchen frei geschriebenen, ungenauen Quellen - schließlich kann es auch dazu führen daß Dich keiner mehr ernst nimmt wenn rauskommt daß Deine Argumente auf solchen Texten basieren...
Das mit den Kühlerklappen stimmt eben nicht, die wurden natürlich über einen Temperatursensor gesteuert. Es gab sicherlich auch die Option sie manuell zu steuern, aber im Flug ging das automatisch
Im Steigflug konnte es z.B. sein daß am Boden die Kühlerklappen auf Langsamflug standen, mit zunehmender Höhe dann langsam in die Schnellflugstellung übergingen.
niklas
-
The only fact here is the difference between your arse and your mouth: one has a tongue but they both spew out crap.
Why bother posting when you will change your mind fscott?
Have a nice day :)
Originally posted by fscott:
No one will ever know the true potential of the 109 rollrate.
*THAT* is a fact my friends.
-
Originally posted by niklas:
na wenn dieser wage Text deine Argumentationsbasis ist... Nix für ungut aber daraus zu schießen das die 109 bei 100 abhebt ist nun wirklich naiv. Ich wäre echt vorsichtig solche Behauptungen in den Raum zu stellen aufgrund von solchen frei geschriebenen, ungenauen Quellen - schließlich kann es auch dazu führen daß Dich keiner mehr ernst nimmt wenn rauskommt daß Deine Argumente auf solchen Texten basieren...
Das mit den Kühlerklappen stimmt eben nicht, die wurden natürlich über einen Temperatursensor gesteuert. Es gab sicherlich auch die Option sie manuell zu steuern, aber im Flug ging das automatisch
Im Steigflug konnte es z.B. sein daß am Boden die Kühlerklappen auf Langsamflug standen, mit zunehmender Höhe dann langsam in die Schnellflugstellung übergingen.
niklas
Natürlich sind die automatisch umso mehr Gas umso mehr schließen die sich,doch wenn man mit 80%Schub fliegt kann man sie manuell weiter öffnen und so haben die das gemacht.
Deine Amiunterlagen kannste in die Tonne schmeissen,sprech lieber mal mit alten Jagdfliegern Niklas,da wirste Sachen erfahren wie z.b. das die Fw190D-9 teilweise besser kurven konnte wie die Bf109-G-10 oder man mit einer G-2 sogar teilweise mit einer Spit mitkurven konnte u.s.w.Die Bf109 wurde zum größten Teil als kurven Kämpfer benutzt.
Wenn Du mit Deinem Wissen die Katastrophe AH verteitigst dann verstehe ich Dich nicht, sorry.
Als Deutscher seil lieber froh das endlich mal eine Sim erscheint wo die Bf109 annähernd real umgesetzt wurde ist.
Desweitern habe ich nie gesagt das das FM 100% real ist,wenn das überhaupt umsetztbar ist mit den heutigen Mitteln,aber sie nähr dran als alle anderen Sims zu Zeit und es werden Nachfolger kommen die noch besser sind u.s.w.
Aber nichts für ungut :)
-
es geht eben nicht nur ums Gas. Das ist ja das Problem, bei Vollgas sind die Klappen immer zu in IL-2. Es geht um den Kühlbedarf!
Was heißt teilweise besser kurven? Reden wir über Dauerkurverei, oder kurzzeitiges kurven? Bei welcher Geschwindigkeit? Höhe?
Das die Spit nicht so toll kurvt im RL wie in AH, das denke ich auch. Aber anstatt nur BLABLA zu produzieren habe ich mir die Mühe gemacht einen Naca-report zu finden, zu scannen und ins Netz zu stellen der meine These untermauert.
Ich schätzte mal Du hast in AH einfach keinen Erfolg und denkst das AH deswegen schlecht ist von der Modellierung. Ich habe in der 109 durchaus meine Erfolge, und andere auch. Vielleicht liegt es eher an Dir als an AH. Denk mal drüber nach.
btw die 109 wurde nicht überwiegend als Kurvenkämpfer geflogen, vor allem nicht wenn die Piloten - was oft der Fall war - numerisch in der Minderzahl waren.
So genug gelabert, ich bin weg aus dem Thread
Gruss
niklas
[ 09-11-2001: Message edited by: niklas ]
-
Originally posted by niklas:
es geht eben nicht nur ums Gas. Das ist ja das Problem, bei Vollgas sind die Klappen immer zu in IL-2. Es geht um den Kühlbedarf!
Was heißt teilweise besser kurven? Reden wir über Dauerkurverei, oder kurzzeitiges kurven? Bei welcher Geschwindigkeit? Höhe?
Das die Spit nicht so toll kurvt im RL wie in AH, das denke ich auch. Aber anstatt nur BLABLA zu produzieren habe ich mir die Mühe gemacht einen Naca-report zu finden, zu scannen und ins Netz zu stellen der meine These untermauert.
Ich schätzte mal Du hast in AH einfach keinen Erfolg und denkst das AH deswegen schlecht ist von der Modellierung. Ich habe in der 109 durchaus meine Erfolge, und andere auch. Vielleicht liegt es eher an Dir als an AH. Denk mal drüber nach.
btw die 109 wurde nicht überwiegend als Kurvenkämpfer geflogen, vor allem nicht wenn die Piloten - was oft der Fall war - numerisch in der Minderzahl waren.
So genug gelabert, ich bin weg aus dem Thread
Gruss
niklas
[ 09-11-2001: Message edited by: niklas ]
Das will ich natürlich nicht so stehen lassen :)
Ich bin schon sehr oft in AH geflogen und hatte auch viele Erfolge aufzuweisen.Allerdings bekomme ich bei der groben Grafik immer Kopfweh.
Aber warum soll ich ein VW nehmen wenn ich für selbe Geld ein BMW bekomme :)
Und wegen AH biste damals weg von WB-Gamesmania?
-
I have seen many stupid statement by AKDejavu but this one takes the price, WTG MAN!
-
Possi, as I said there's no point in arguing with you, so I'm not even trying.
I was tempted to translate everything you wrote, but I think it will be enough if I just translated this one sentence.
"Als Deutscher seil lieber froh das endlich mal eine Sim erscheint wo die Bf109 annähernd real umgesetzt wurde ist."
"As a german, be glad that finally a sim is being released that models the 109 realistically."
Get lost.
-
I have seen many stupid statement by AKDejavu but this one takes the price, WTG MAN!
And what statement was that wilbus? Come on.. don't be shy.
AKDejaVu