Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Tac on October 25, 2007, 04:54:41 PM
-
Welp HTC... tried this game again since AH1 and although the graphics are prettier, the FM tweaked a bit I see no difference in gameplay at all.
Worse yet, I see that the auto-retraction of flaps is still in the game. Very sad to see this considering that this issue severely affects the performance of the P-38. Kinda pointless most times to even use the fowler flaps knowing they are sure to be the cause of your death when they retract and spin you out during a hard G turn just because the stupid speed ticker hit the X speed mark for a split second during the turn.
I'm very dissapointed.
-
As ever, it does not affect the P-38 except to give it an advantage. All that would happen without the autoretract is that your P-38 would lose its flaps instead of retract them.
Any time they autoretract, stop using them. There, you have simulated how it would work if they didn't have autoretract.
Frankly, I agree with you that autoretract should be removed as it is wholly unrealistic. But it is a massive advantage for the P-38, F4U and Ki-84, not the disadvantage it is claimed to be.
-
Karnak,
There is no advantage to fowlers auto retracting. I dont see how you can make this claim.
You 2 notches of flaps down turning hard inside your target. To make it simple imagine its a loop-fight.
Top of the loop your speed falls to 100mph, on the bottom of the loop it reaches 200mph. Lets say the 'tick' mark for the autoretract of the 2nd notch of flaps is 200mph.
What happens is: The INSTANT the speed ticker hits 200mph on the bottom of the loop the flap retracts one notch.
Airflow on the wing changes AS you are pulling the nose hard up. Result? Spin. Nothing you can do about it.. its the game itself with this fairy feature screwing you over.
The 38 IRL did not have its flaps retract at all. They jammed ...and ONLY when they were seriously abused (I think the plane had to be like 150mph faster than the threshold to jam on their rails). They did not rip out.
If you have flaps out for 2 or 3 seconds past the max allowed speed then by all means rip them out, retract them, WHATEVER. But this BS of them retracting the instant a speed tick mark is reached (usually for less than half a second) causing spins should not be in the game.
-
Tac, unfortunately I don't think we'll see the removal of this pathetic hand holding coddling feature in our life time. I've posted numerous times about this and even posted, along with some others, viable solutions and suggestions to properly model flaps for all planes and the damage they'd incur from over speeding.
All these threads about the auto-retracting feature does is bring out players like Karnak who ball up their fists and nash their teeth and talk about how we only want this so we can have an unfair advantage. Karnak however doesn't realize that quite a few of us come from games that didn't have auto-retracting flaps and modeled the damage from over speeding. Strange how that feature in those games didn't give one an unfair advantage over another nor did it drive away new players or scare off potential new players. *shrug*
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Tac
What happens is: The INSTANT the speed ticker hits 200mph on the bottom of the loop the flap retracts one notch.
Airflow on the wing changes AS you are pulling the nose hard up. Result? Spin. Nothing you can do about it.. its the game itself with this fairy feature screwing you over.
Tac,
The auto retract shouldn't cause you to spin the P-38 and has never caused me to spin any of the P-38s.
I've just flown some loops at full flaps, the auto retract doesn't cause any problem at all, certainly no stall and no spin.
Perhaps something else is causing you to spin, but I don't think it is the auto retracting flaps.
Badboy
-
Originally posted by Badboy
Tac,
The auto retract shouldn't cause you to spin the P-38 and has never caused me to spin any of the P-38s.
Same here. Auto retract may be unrealistic and one may don't like it, but I never lost control because of it.
-
My experience says otherwise. Every time I spin out of control in those situations its always right after the flap retracts. Heck, I even watch the whoopee speed ticker and see it retract and get the instant spin-out. Doing the turn with no flaps out pulling even harder on the stick I do not spin..but if flaps are out and they retract... it does.
-
Originally posted by Badboy
Tac,
The auto retract shouldn't cause you to spin the P-38 and has never caused me to spin any of the P-38s.
I've just flown some loops at full flaps, the auto retract doesn't cause any problem at all, certainly no stall and no spin.
Perhaps something else is causing you to spin, but I don't think it is the auto retracting flaps.
Badboy
It will cause you to spin at times. It's bane for us dedicated 38 drivers ever since the L was added. However, with experience you can catch it before departure and recover but in most cases that will result in losing the advantage and possibly the fight.
It usually happens when you're in a nose low turn fight and pulling a hard turn right at the moment the flaps decide to auto-retract. When that happens, it feels like the wing just suddenly lost lift and you start to spin. Since this usually happens when the 38 driver is low near the deck, most of the time these spins are unrecoverable.
When you start to hear the flaps auto-retract, better ease up on the stick a little otherwise you'll spin if you're pulling any Gs in a turn.
ack-ack
-
Tac,
What would happen if the game didn't do the autoretract is the instant your speed touched 200mph your flaps would break.
The people advocating that autoretracting be taken out do not seem to understand that. It would make flap play very, very dicey. The P-38 and F4U would be much, much better off than the Ki-84 (which would functionally lose its combat flaps), but a slight error would (depending on how HiTech chose to model them breaking) either strip them from the aircraft or jam them in their current setting. I suppose they could also be forced to retract and simply not be lowerable as well.
It feels to me like you expect them to stay out, or hold the fighter back, if there were no autoretract and that is simply not what would happen. HiTech himself stated that the alternative was to simply have them break at the set speed.
-
to add to what Karnak said, if you want to argue "a couple of seconds wouldn't break the flaps" where then DO you draw the line?
there has to be a failure point, and HTC has set those points. instead of having the flap "break" and then be in a stuck position or whatever they have decided to have the flaps retract.
instead of worrying about them auto retracting why not watch your speed and stay below the point they retract?
-
JB the 'couple of seconds' does not imply an increase in speed while flaps out. The issue is the plane has the retract point for the flaps at a speed that is quickly attainable by the 38 in a high G loop turn but it does not retain the speed for ..heck not even half a second before it's bled down to much lower than the current retract point.
Its not a question of drawing the line. It has been drawn already and it has issues. It needs to be addressed or changed.
Autoretract should not be in the game PERIOD. Let them jam, let them rip out if you want. Jamme flaps do not spin you out. Ripped out flaps will make you lose whatever turn benefit you HAD.. they rip you lose it but you dont spin out of control. The retraction feater has to go.
You say I should watch my speed... the question is WHY should I? Any other plane does NOT have to...when they SHOULD. Ironic how strongly some argue about a fantasy feature that if removed would also affect their rides but tell the 38 drivers to take it in the arse and shut up.
I dream of the day f4u's and n1ks and spits fly around with massive flap damage. ;)
-
well it's just that I have seen this discussion soooo many times, and actually witnessed Dale and Doug talk about it in person at one of the conventions.
I really don't think they are ever going to change it, as there is no other viable option to put in place.
it's one of those "live with it" things like network lag. it can't be changed.
-
Though I'd like to point out that the F4U Corsair could retract its flaps automatically under certain speeds and up to 25 degrees i believe. Any more degrees and the flaps would jam in their position. Says somewhere in my manual; i'll get more detailed info later.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
Though I'd like to point out that the F4U Corsair could retract its flaps automatically under certain speeds and up to 25 degrees i believe. Any more degrees and the flaps would jam in their position. Says somewhere in my manual; i'll get more detailed info later.
According to Bodhi, who rebuilds F4Us, if the flap lever was left down, the flaps would blow up, but come down automatically when speed allowed. Set it and forget it.... The RONCO Corsair!
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Tac
Autoretract should not be in the game PERIOD. Let them jam, let them rip out if you want. Jamme flaps do not spin you out. Ripped out flaps will make you lose whatever turn benefit you HAD.. they rip you lose it but you dont spin out of control. The retraction feater has to go.
The way the real world P-38 flaps would fail is that that rollers could be popped out of the respective tracks and jam. As often as not, only one would jam. That creates a serious issue with asymmetrical lift when you do try retract them.
Here's my thoughts on the issue. I can't recall the last time I encountered a spin as a result of the flaps retracting. Nary even a wobble, for that matter, and I push the 38 as hard as anyone else. The Ki-84 is far more prone to a dipping a wing if the flaps retract, and I can catch that without undue drama.
I have a unique sound for flap movement that I can hear over the background noise. That adds a certain tactile input, meaning I can hear the flaps coming up before they actually have a major effect on handling. That allows me a second to adjust my input and avoid any adverse consequence beyond the reduced lift. As it is, I'm very smooth on the controls and don't have stall problems in any aircraft, and I'm a proponent of the "if it ain't shakin', it ain't turnin" style.
I've dueled with many P-38 sticks and one common problem is being too abrupt on the controls, which often induces a snap-stall-spin auger. I see it all the time. Which, by the way, is why I preach: "slow is smooth and smooth is fast." If you fight the aircraft, the aircraft usually wins. if you're wrestling with the airplane and induce a spin, ease off some. Besides, rough flying gobbles up energy. The current P-38 isn't what it used to be. Excessive use of flaps is always counter-productive.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Don't know that I've ever spun the old 38G because of flaps and I have em out a lot.
Good to see you got yourself back in the 38 however.
I'd suggest having fun with what we've got since it's as close as most of us are gonna get to a 38 :)
-
How do we know that only the flaps would rip out or jam and that the whole wing wouldn't break off?
Shear, strain and force couples/moments.
A 'freebody diagram' for the dam wing might reveal:
The flap down would cause an axial torque on the wing, i.e. induce a 'force moment?' (been awhile) which would 'shear stress' the wing right off. Before the wing actually shears though, you might get a 'permanent deformation' i.e. 'strain' on the wings components, meaning some of the structure may have stretched too far, thinned, and weaken'ed, and need replacement.
Yep, its been awhile but otherwise, check a school's bookstore engineering department for book on 'statics' (a pre-dynamics class.) Btw statics is a different class from statistics.
Microsoft:
Leave the Flaps down in microsoft flight sim and I think we lose the whole wing. Summed up, at '200 tick'... ms might only say 'you have crashed.'
I need to test this but no time atm...
-
We all (the likes of AKAK Corky Wide Badz and I) have learned to anticpate ARF and adjust our stick input accordingly. I don't even need to hear the flap sound. The magnitude of tunnel vision I can pull, tells me how close I am to the upper speed of the flap setting.
Regardless of ARF, a P-38 is most likely to depart into a spin when transitioning from nose down to level. An auto retract just complicates that characteristic, but it can be adjusted to.
Fact is, we have pitched alternatives, and HiTech has pretty much told us he is unconvinced that there are more alternatives than auto-retract or break the instant the limit is reached. I disagree, but that's irrelevent. Just got to adapt to it.
By the way, the damage model only has 2 states for flaps. They are either working or stuck. There is no, broken off state, despite the graphic cues indicating otherwise.
-
Yes, I have had one hit on my Ki-84 when they were down. Having one stuck down made flying back to base very irritating and unpleasant.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Yes, I have had one hit on my Ki-84 when they were down. Having one stuck down made flying back to base very irritating and unpleasant.
it may sound funny, and you'd think why in the world would you ever be in that situation, but try flying a 190-d9 with 1 flap stuck down full :O :eek: :O
had it happen a couple of times, and basically after about a minute of trying to trim out I just nosed in to the ground. almost impossible to fly.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
According to Bodhi, who rebuilds F4Us, if the flap lever was left down, the flaps would blow up, but come down automatically when speed allowed. Set it and forget it.... The RONCO Corsair!
My regards,
Widewing
Glad I read through the whole thread before posting this same info. :D
Now come on HTC, if you're going to give us flaps that automatically blow back up, then at LEAST give aircraft that had the historical capability to have them auto-drop do so.
I think I remember reading that while not in the manual, Corsair pilots in the field would frequently set the flap lever for two notches before entering combat to take advantage of this.
I also believe the F6F had the same capability.
-
There should be a option to have auto retract flaps for the players. Let those who want manuel control have it by a click of the mouse in the game settings.
-
correct murdr. It also means there is no state in between 'deployed' and 'not deployed'. When you hear the flap going down its already too late, the airflow in your plane is changed instantly (hence the spins).
It would be good to have the system have a 2 second delay before retracting the flaps once it hits the marker. Flaps only work at slow speeds and nobody uses flaps flying straight and level nor on a dive..its on tight turns only..hence high G turns hence speed bleeding. That delay can mean the difference between spinning out because the speed ticker hits the retract spot for a split second and NOT spinning because in that 2 second timer your plane slowed down a further 50mph or so during the hard manouvers.
-
I dunno Tac. I see a lot of P-38 drivers doing vertical manuevering and the flaps are retracted on the acceleration downhill. Happens to me in the Ki-84 all the time too.
Personally I would make them have a chance of jamming and no autoretract. And that chance would be calculated separately for each flap. The further over the rated limit you go the more likely it is to jam. I'd make that chance pretty steep too, 50mph over would pretty much mean jammed flaps and 10mph over would have a good chance of jamming at least one.
Anything, such as your suggestion, that increases the hokey flapfest gameplay is to be avoided in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Tac
Welp HTC... tried this game again since AH1 and although the graphics are prettier, the FM tweaked a bit I see no difference in gameplay at all.
Worse yet, I see that the auto-retraction of flaps is still in the game. Very sad to see this considering that this issue severely affects the performance of the P-38. Kinda pointless most times to even use the fowler flaps knowing they are sure to be the cause of your death when they retract and spin you out during a hard G turn just because the stupid speed ticker hit the X speed mark for a split second during the turn.
I'm very dissapointed.
TAC..i just responded a bit in length to oone of your posts in the other current p38 thread....but all in all........a lot of us don't like em...and i still suck in the 38.......but all you have to do is learn to fly it as it is........and find it's strengths..and fly against your nmy's strenghts.........
HAVE FUN DUDE!!!!
<>
JOHN
1LTCAP
-
Originally posted by Tac
Karnak,
There is no advantage to fowlers auto retracting. I dont see how you can make this claim.
You 2 notches of flaps down turning hard inside your target. To make it simple imagine its a loop-fight.
Top of the loop your speed falls to 100mph, on the bottom of the loop it reaches 200mph. Lets say the 'tick' mark for the autoretract of the 2nd notch of flaps is 200mph.
What happens is: The INSTANT the speed ticker hits 200mph on the bottom of the loop the flap retracts one notch.
Airflow on the wing changes AS you are pulling the nose hard up. Result? Spin. Nothing you can do about it.. its the game itself with this fairy feature screwing you over.
The 38 IRL did not have its flaps retract at all. They jammed ...and ONLY when they were seriously abused (I think the plane had to be like 150mph faster than the threshold to jam on their rails). They did not rip out.
If you have flaps out for 2 or 3 seconds past the max allowed speed then by all means rip them out, retract them, WHATEVER. But this BS of them retracting the instant a speed tick mark is reached (usually for less than half a second) causing spins should not be in the game.
GGGRRRRRRR........to spin, one wing HAS to stall FIRST.....so you MUST be in uncoordinated flight!!!!!!! period. if you're flying in a turn, and coordinated, and stall, you're only gonna drop the nose, then recover....if you're skidding or slipping through your turn, then you'll spin.
so theoretticlay you shouldn't be able to spin comming down through a loop. unless, you're slipping with rudder to prevent speed increase......but then if they retract, learn to use it to advantage......
and HAVE FUN
-
Personally, I think it should be based on the aircraft.
If the aircraft's flaps were designed to automatically blow back up above a certain airspeed, then they should blow back up (and automatically deploy again if the aircraft's flap design allowed it, such as the afore-mentioned F4U). If they DIDN'T blow back up, then they don't in the game and you risk jamming and/or ripping them off.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Personally, I think it should be based on the aircraft.
If the aircraft's flaps were designed to automatically blow back up above a certain airspeed, then they should blow back up (and automatically deploy again if the aircraft's flap design allowed it, such as the afore-mentioned F4U). If they DIDN'T blow back up, then they don't in the game and you risk jamming and/or ripping them off.
sax...i agree that they shouldn't auto retract,,,,but they do, and apparently it's not gonna change....that's why i keep just saying to learn to fight with them as they are, and don't worry about wat's authentic.....ya wanna wint he fight, ya have to fly them as they are in here.......
<>
john
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Personally I would make them have a chance of jamming and no autoretract. And that chance would be calculated separately for each flap. The further over the rated limit you go the more likely it is to jam. I'd make that chance pretty steep too, 50mph over would pretty much mean jammed flaps and 10mph over would have a good chance of jamming at least one.
That's pretty much what I've asked for, but no dice.
-
CAP just want to make sure you didn't misread me:
I'm not saying do away with blow-back entirely. I think auto retract should vary depending on the aircraft.
IE, as previously mentioned the flaps on the F4U and F6F were designed to automatically blow back up above a given airspeed, and similarly if the flap handle was left in the "down" position the flaps would deploy again as airspeed decreased -- not truly automatic combat flaps, but exploited historically by pilots for this very purpose. This is how the flaps should function in the game FOR THESE TWO AIRCRAFT (sorry Tac ;) ).
HOWEVER, if the aircraft's flaps were NOT capable of automatically retracting in real life, then that's how they should respond in game FOR THAT PLANE ONLY: Leave them down and you risk a jam or tearing them off.
IMO that would be the ideal solution as it would FURTHER make proper flap management part of knowing your plane, rather than the arbitrary auto-retract across the plane set we have now.
-
Why not have a option for AUTO RETRACT FLAPS on the flight options like we do with stall limiter? I think this would solve everyones problems.
Also just some info, some planes were actually equipped with AUTO retracting flaps in real life. I know that some models of the f4u were equipped with them.
I have lost control from flaps befor but not with a spin.
What ususally happens to me is when i got 3-5 notches set in a slow looping fight on the deck at the bottom of the loop if im right at the threshold sometimes my flaps will go back up causing me not to be able to pull up enuf anymore to avoid the ground.
-
Originally posted by WaRLoCkL
What ususally happens to me is when i got 3-5 notches set in a slow looping fight on the deck at the bottom of the loop if im right at the threshold sometimes my flaps will go back up causing me not to be able to pull up enuf anymore to avoid the ground.
The question begs, do you pull off power on the down side of the loop?
If not, try getting into the habit of reducing power on the down side and going back to max power as you transition the nose above the horizon. This will greatly reduce the possibility of pancaking at the bottom should the flaps retract.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Saxman
CAP just want to make sure you didn't misread me:
I'm not saying do away with blow-back entirely. I think auto retract should vary depending on the aircraft.
IE, as previously mentioned the flaps on the F4U and F6F were designed to automatically blow back up above a given airspeed, and similarly if the flap handle was left in the "down" position the flaps would deploy again as airspeed decreased -- not truly automatic combat flaps, but exploited historically by pilots for this very purpose. This is how the flaps should function in the game FOR THESE TWO AIRCRAFT (sorry Tac ;) ).
HOWEVER, if the aircraft's flaps were NOT capable of automatically retracting in real life, then that's how they should respond in game FOR THAT PLANE ONLY: Leave them down and you risk a jam or tearing them off.
IMO that would be the ideal solution as it would FURTHER make proper flap management part of knowing your plane, rather than the arbitrary auto-retract across the plane set we have now.
hi SAXMAN,
i think i read ya right.....and i do remember reading somewhere else about the hellcat and corsair flaps too.....i believe they were actually powered by air? i'd like to see this too, but i also realize that for whatever reason, we're most likely not gonna get it....and my post wasn't a shot at you BTW,.....as you sound like you've learned to fight with them as they are in game....but was aimed at the ones who just complain about it. i'd be willing to bet that if HT changed them, then there'd be at least 2 threads complaining about why they took auto-retract away:rofl
whatcha think?
:D
<>
john
-
I wish HTC make the flaps jam at the critical speed. Not only that, I wish that only ONE side would jam.
I despise the over usage of flaps in this game (and plenty others) and the hammering on the "flaps down" key to get them out as soon as possible. I want the guy fighting me to have his flaps stuck asymmetrically, in the fully extended position he had them, as soon as I push over into a dive. See how he likes that and how eager he will be to use them next time.
Then we will hear some real whining about the exact speed at which flaps "should" jam and that they retract too slowly making you over speed.
-
But again, boz, you're getting into negatively affecting planes that historically DID have auto-retracting flaps. I still say base it on how the real aircraft's flaps performed if they would blow back up, have them blow back up. If they would stay down and risk a jam, have them stay down and risk a jam.
-
Waiting for the inevitable N1K2 flap comment.
-
Refering to the system that, by all accounts worked very well, automatically raised and lowered the N1K's flaps for combat purposes?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Refering to the system that, by all accounts worked very well, automatically raised and lowered the N1K's flaps for combat purposes?
Yup thats the one.;)
-
It is the Job of the programmers to coddle those who can't play with pure skill. Every game has this happen. The more you coddle, more people they hope to bring in (see all the noobs floating around lately?). I've been in games where at the start, it required skill to get anything done. Heck, when I started EQ on first release, it took you atleast 6 months of dedicated play to hit level 50. I quit after a year, and started it up again when I met my exwife (she played too, don't start lol). But when I returned, it only took 3 days to reach the newly added level 65 from level 1. Hand holding at it's finest. AH will work the same way. The longer it stays out, the more the older pilots' skills will be negated by the training wheels given out. Once you see a rapid pace of more training wheels, you'll know the end is near for the game. Right now, we've hit the down hill, I just don't know how far down we are :(
One comment on auto retract specifics.. they let the gear rip off.. why not let us ruin our flaps after a certain point of speed and stress.. Oh wait.. coddling.
-
Originally posted by SEseph
One comment on auto retract specifics.. they let the gear rip off.. why not let us ruin our flaps after a certain point of speed and stress.. Oh wait.. coddling.
And how exactly will you decide at what combination of speed and G causes what? There is no data to base this on and the only thing it will improve is the BBS whines. People here were going out of their wits to prove that the flaps on their fav plane could be lowered at higher speeds than indicated in the pilot manual. Of course they could and of course there was a safety margin. If HTC would choose some arbitrary numbers then people would be right to argue for other numbers.
HTC chose to stick with official data for a good reason which I perfectly understand. Don't get me wrong. I'd love it if flaps would jam which will lead to a much more conservative usage of them. Still, there is no good methodical way to do this, that I see anyhow.
-
That's actually a very good idea bozon. Very original.
Interesting implications, too.
Get rid of the auto-retract like they want, and then add in an uncertainty of jamming with a significant chance of the flaps being jammed in assymetric configurations... so sometimes they jam evenly, sometimes they don't, sometimes they break off, sometimes they're fine...
I like it!
-
If HTC know of flaps that auto retracted then IMO AH would be the better to have them modelled.
If HTC know of flaps that incurred damage above speeds (whether or not such damage be a random distribution of jams or other such failures)....then IMO AH would be better to have them modelled.
There will be some ac for which HTC do not know exactly how flaps performed at excess speeds.or even what those speeds are.
There is nothing new here. There are several aspects of FM's where HTC have to apply a judgement in the absence of actual data.
However IMO AH would be better for such judgements over and above the totally false world of every ac having auto retracting flaps
-
The problem that people who want them to break instead of retract need to solve is at what point they break.
And whatever is chosen, there will be massive whines that x was chosen when clearly y should have been.
-
There is nothing to solve.
Add a 2 second delay timer for flap rippage or auto-retract once the speed indicator hits the current retract speed mark.
In 2 seconds you are not going to increase your speed by more than 50mph unless you are in a sustained dive. In 2 seconds, if you are in a hard turn manouver, the speed will go DOWN rather than UP.
Make those 2 seconds be hard buffet shakes (to screw any aiming and tell the pilot he is riding on the threshold of the flaps).
The problem is that the flaps retract instantly in situations where the speed of the airplane is constantly fluctuating up and down by abour 30mph or so. The problem is the damn things retracting the split second you hit the retract speed marker EVEN THOUGH your speed drops well below the retract speed mark in less than a second after the flaps retract (high g turns).
What is so hard about that?
No plane is affected negatively by doing this. No plane is given an advantage over another for doing this. What it DOES do however, is FIX a big issue in the P-38 which is currently affecting its performance (and which was NOT an issue in RL).
-
2 seconds will make no difference. People will just grant themselves an extra two seconds, then come on and whine about what happened after they went 2.1 seconds and claim that .1 seconds wouldn't make a difference like that.
-
I'm no aeronautic engineer, and no engineering historian. But, I think some of the posters are missing one very important point.
This is a GAME. That means we play it for fun, not for work. And since it isn't fun to always taxi out from hangar, and let engine warm up for 10 minutes before full power, we shouldnt have to do that even though it was that way in real life. Since we're not going to be 100% completely accurate in reproducing what it was like (glad we don't have to chill the computer room to 20 below!), what we're really talking about is where to draw the line between historical fidelity and gameplay fun. HT has very successfully made a fun game that still works to "feel right."
Getting that kind of balance is NOT easy -- . Since many of us are "plane heads" in one degree or another, most of us at one time or another wanted this or that feature inserted...but what that desire really boils down to is wanting the slider moved more towards realism even if it made the game harder. (And incidentally, we may not have liked what we wanted once it was there...but that's another issue.)
So here's my point:
Regardless of my own individual preferences, I can see that Dale has a pretty darn good track record when it comes to judging where to draw the Fun vs Real dividing line. It seems to me that judgement skill is valuable and not all that common, again as witnessed by the large bargain bin at most software stores.
So, just like in my day job -- if I find a specialist who has demonstrably good skills and good outcomes I'm going to give his advice the benefit of the doubt, especially when the best course comes down to a judgement call. I'm inclined to give HT the benefit of the doubt, and if he disagrees after I've made my best case for a change (as I have done in the past) , then that's OK by me.
After all, while we only face another slash in the "death" column, it's his livelihood that's on the line.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
And whatever is chosen, there will be massive whines that x was chosen when clearly y should have been.
no more massive than e.g AHII proked my pony etc etc etc
so.............. ?????? nothing new here then.
and we are one step closer to actuality and have removed a gamey use of flaps where there should not be one.
Jeez even in AW you could damage flaps by using them at too great a speed and AH could do it much better than AW if desired.
I see arguements about would they break this way or that way when right now they do not break at all!! However the Aileron on my Boston always comes off the same way above certain speeds..whats the difference??
-
Originally posted by Simaril
I'm no aeronautic engineer, and no engineering historian. But, I think some of the posters are missing one very important point.
This is a GAME. That means we play it for fun, not for work. And since it isn't fun to always taxi out from hangar, and let engine warm up for 10 minutes before full power, we shouldnt have to do that even though it was that way in real life. Since we're not going to be 100% completely accurate in reproducing what it was like (glad we don't have to chill the computer room to 20 below!), what we're really talking about is where to draw the line between historical fidelity and gameplay fun. HT has very successfully made a fun game that still works to "feel right."
Getting that kind of balance is NOT easy -- . Since many of us are "plane heads" in one degree or another, most of us at one time or another wanted this or that feature inserted...but what that desire really boils down to is wanting the slider moved more towards realism even if it made the game harder. (And incidentally, we may not have liked what we wanted once it was there...but that's another issue.)
So here's my point:
Regardless of my own individual preferences, I can see that Dale has a pretty darn good track record when it comes to judging where to draw the Fun vs Real dividing line. It seems to me that judgement skill is valuable and not all that common, again as witnessed by the large bargain bin at most software stores.
So, just like in my day job -- if I find a specialist who has demonstrably good skills and good outcomes I'm going to give his advice the benefit of the doubt, especially when the best course comes down to a judgement call. I'm inclined to give HT the benefit of the doubt, and if he disagrees after I've made my best case for a change (as I have done in the past) , then that's OK by me.
After all, while we only face another slash in the "death" column, it's his livelihood that's on the line.
this is what i've been trying to say for the last couple of times that i've posted.......just have fun as they are.......adapt to what we have......then have fun killing....or being killed(ususally what i'm doing:D )
-
and we are one step closer to actuality and have removed a gamey use of flaps where there should not be one.
Jeez even in AW you could damage flaps by using them at too great a speed and AH could do it much better than AW if desired.
I see arguements about would they break this way or that way when right now they do not break at all!! However the Aileron on my Boston always comes off the same way above certain speeds..whats the difference??
Tilt, the difference lies in that the regulation of flap speeds, and its subsequent automatic retraction, effectively serves as an artificial barrier against what some part of the flightsim community calls a, "flapfest" - the practice of almost-mandatory reliance on flaps during combat. bozon's reaction on this matter, as can be seen in previous posts, would be a good example.
It is unknown if HT and Pyro purposely envisioned this particular purpose into the auto-retraction scheme. My guess is they really didn't think about it that way, and just put in auto-retraction to make general management easier.. and the outcome is purely a by-product of it all. However, whether or not it was on purpose, the regulation and auto-retraction has effectively removed general "flap abuse" from the game, and confined it to only low speed/angles combat - where it realistically belongs. (barring the rare, gifted planes that can utilize "combat settings" of flaps at high speeds)
For as long as I can remember, there has been opposing opinions about flaps in combat. I'm sure you are aware of this.
Some contend that real WW2 pilots, used flaps every bit as aggressively as we do in the game. The others, including me(and perhaps people like bozon), think flap usage in combat was generally limited to special situations or a relatively small number of pilots/planes/squadrons - since the surrounding evidence seems to suggest it.
Flaps are a secondary device in flight, generally only used in landings and take-offs for stabilizing purposes. Although the difference between game environment and real life environment may relatively increase or decrease the respective importance of this particular flight control during combat situations, as a whole, their role in combat should be limited: as suggested in this most excellent article.
"Other fighters have flap designs that are not so capable, particularly in jets where the speed range is wider. In these aircraft, flaps may be used to improve turn performance, but only up to the flap limiting speed. Anything over that speed is a no-no. What I mean is that the pilot should not deliberately exceed the flight manual limitations regardless of the effect on the flaps. Whether such action actually causes damage is irrelevant¡¦don¡¯t exceed the flap limits!"
SimHQ Article on Flaps and Combat (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_002d.html)
The underlining is subjective on my part, which makes the heart of this argument. If the above can be called a "realistic" attitude, then clearly game pilots are hardly likely to abide by it due to obvious reasons. While it is mostly upto one's own decision whether or not to behave in a certain manner, unrealistic behavior does clearly lead to unrealistic circumstances.
In my own terms, I call this situation a typical example of "situationary realism" as opposed to "technical realism". In some cases these two concepts are not necessarily incompatible, but in many cases they are. In this case, HT's method of auto-retraction, has produced (as an accidental by-product perhaps) a means to regulate the unrealistic behavior so most of the combat in AH2 remains as close to "authentic" as one can get, inside the limits of it being a computer simulation game.
Now, let's ask ourselves these two questions:
"If they can accept the flaps jamming at over limited speeds, and say that they can/will manage it manually without any problems, then..."
A).. how do they expect to manage it manually, when they are complaining that the flaps are auto-retracting - which clearly means that they've already failed to manage it in the first place?
B).. in which circumstances does auto-retraction become a source of complaint?
You see, these are interesting questions to ask, because while the answer to each implies distinctly different possibilities, exactly opposite of each other, they both clearly display why the auto-retraction is, as HT puts, "working as intended".
A).. how do they expect to manage it manually, when they are complaining that the flaps are auto-retracting - which clearly means that they've already failed to manage it in the first place?
* Meeting auto-retraction currently in-game, already indicates a failure in management. They went over the speed limit, so it retracts. Therefore, if auto-retraction is deleted from the game, then in many cases where they try the same stunt with flaps out, they will damage it. This, might lead to general avoidance in flap usage altogether - which defeats their own purpose of being able to "control flaps better for combat".
Therefore, they must argue that removing auto-retraction is not enough, and some sort of special implementation must be guaranteed so they can deploy flaps over the speed limit and yet, still do not receive any damage. Precisely as Karnak and bozon criticized.
B).. in which circumstances does auto-retraction become a source of complaint?
* They complain that the flaps have a tendency to retract under critical circumstances where their plane of choice, is about to secure an advantageous positioning - such as coming out of a loop, making a tight downwards turn, etc etc..
In a sense, the flaps auto-retracting indicates they've failed to manage their plane, because they stepped too far from its limits. Is it really so surprising to expect a plane to lose control and crash, when they've gone too far over the edge?
Ahh.. but they argue that, "Only if the flaps were still on, I'd not lose control".
Essentially, they want to use the flaps as a critical instrument of their maneuvering, and want its effects to stay over the limit as proposed by HT (..who follows the flight manuals). In other words, they want to stick the flaps out over recommended limits, which under real-life circumstances would not as often happen, despite the possibility of receiving damage, so that they may be able to continue with their rough handling of the plane to gain a kill.
In other words, they wanna game the game.
It's not real life. Who cares if the flap jams and you might be killed because of it? If there's that bad guy in front of me, and I want to outloop it, then I will outloop it - even if it means having to stick the flaps down all the way through all the speeds.
Basically, it's a self-destruction argument.
If auto-retraction is removed, HT as sure as hell, will put in some kind of detrimental penalties to suffer from failure of its management. If they've suffered from auto-retraction that screwed their manuevring in the past, then this time, they'll suffer from some other penalties that will screw with their maneuvering... in which case nothing would be better. It'd probably be even worse for them.
Thus, what they are asking is not a simple removal of auto-retraction. They want auto-retraction removed, without any sufficient penalties to replace it. And that, I cannot agree upon.
-
I think we agree on how we would like to see auto retracting flaps removed and what would replace them................... the exception is that I would like them removed with such damage modelling replacing the auto retract function.
I care nothing for the whines of those who would like to have flaps under unrealistic circumstances........to me it the same as wanting auto retracting flaps now ...............its unrealistic.
I do not agree that flap abuse is removed. I see it constantly...... remember its not just auto retract.............. this function also stops deployment above safe speeds...............and its quite clear to me that folk constantly try to drop them as the decelerate.(I know I do.... heck my JS is even programed to do it!)
For me we have a flap fest combat scenario now.............. (heck I do it my self in a Lavochkin!!). I see no reason why flaps should not creak and groan for a bit and then incurr damage in some way............if the ac had some sort of auto retracting flap then fine..............model it ............if not then model that!
-
Originally posted by Tilt
I think we agree on how we would like to see auto retracting flaps removed and what would replace them................... the exception is that I would like them removed with such damage modelling replacing the auto retract function.
I care nothing for the whines of those who would like to have flaps under unrealistic circumstances........to me it the same as wanting auto retracting flaps now ...............its unrealistic.
I do not agree that flap abuse is removed. I see it constantly...... remember its not just auto retract.............. this function also stops deployment above safe speeds...............and its quite clear to me that folk constantly try to drop them as the decelerate.(I know I do.... heck my JS is even programed to do it!)
For me we have a flap fest combat scenario now.............. (heck I do it my self in a Lavochkin!!). I see no reason why flaps should not creak and groan for a bit and then incurr damage in some way............if the ac had some sort of auto retracting flap then fine..............model it ............if not then model that!
i use the foward slip to keep my dive speeds down.........i STILL haven't run into the problems mentioned in the beginning of this thread though from the auto retracting flaps though. what i DO do though......if in a slow fight, and i hear them start to come up, and feel the plane change in handling, i almost instantly hit the flap down button again as most likely i've lost enough speed that fast to bring them back out.......but then again, i've learned to fight with the plane the way it is in here........now all i have to do is to learn to fight WELL:rofl :rofl
-
I think we agree on how we would like to see auto retracting flaps removed and what would replace them................... the exception is that I would like them removed with such damage modelling replacing the auto retract function.
But like bozon and Karnak mentioned, how?
How is HT ever going to figure out just what kind of tendency the flaps would fall into, when deployed/maintained over the speed limitations recommended by the official manufacturers? A safety margin? By how much? Would a safety margin guarantee a 100% chance of the flaps remaining safe? If not, where's HT gonna pull the numbers from?
I care nothing for the whines of those who would like to have flaps under unrealistic circumstances........to me it the same as wanting auto retracting flaps now ...............its unrealistic.
But realism is never the only measure in designing a simulation game. It is perhaps the most important, yes, but at least in my view, maintaining a technically unrealistic approach that would at least prevent an unrealistic situation, is still more preferrable than a technically realistic approach that would, in all due probability, bring out an unrealistic situation.
Ofcourse, on this opinions may differ, and I understand your terms.
I do not agree that flap abuse is removed. I see it constantly...... remember its not just auto retract.............. this function also stops deployment above safe speeds...............and its quite clear to me that folk constantly try to drop them as the decelerate.(I know I do.... heck my JS is even programed to do it!)
For me we have a flap fest combat scenario now.............. (heck I do it my self in a Lavochkin!!). I see no reason why flaps should not creak and groan for a bit and then incurr damage in some way............if the ac had some sort of auto retracting flap then fine..............model it ............if not then model that!
At least in AH the "abuse of flaps" is confined to speeds which was officially recognized by the makers. Look at IL-2, with a seemingly more "realistic" treatment of flaps where it can be deployed/maintained at any speeds. Once over a certain speed (which is way higher than recommended values), the flaps will jam. But this doesn't prevent IL-2 gamers from totally relying on flaps every time they need a comfy spead break, instant lift-device, a boost in turn, stabilization during angles fight, and etc etc etc etc.
Heck, I'd fight Spifires in 109s by tightening turns at speeds over 350km/h in that game. A Spitfire enters a turn, and you'd just chop throttle and bring out flaps whenever you want to tighten your turn - as long as it isn't over about 400km/h. It's a insta-speed break, +lift magic device in that game. Nobody cares if such practice was against real life rules, or hardly recommended at all. They find it necessary, so they just do it. Thus, effectively, in IL-2 the end result of such treatment is that flap limits have gone over the regulation speeds. The IL-2 gamers have effectively figured out a speed at which the flaps 'never break', and use it at whim.
However, in AH2, people may flap around all day long under 200~225mph, but at least they can't do the same thing over those speeds. In AH2, when I try to follow a Spitfire entering a turn, in a 109, I first manage plane as it is, try to dump speed with better controls/throttle management, and if I do succeed in staying behind the Spitfire throughout the process, and my both the Spits and my 109's speed goes under 200mph, only then I start using flaps.
In my view, the Spit vs 109 fight done in AH2, is way more realistic than how it's played in IL-2 - thanks to the auto-retraction which forces an unbreakable limit in flap usage.
-
If gear and ailerons can be modelled to break above certain conditions then so can flaps............there is not difference here.
I note that flaps can be deployed at differing speeds in AH as can gear (F4U) where the model should allow it.
Gear can break where the model allows it too.
I care nothing for IL2 if it has gamey almost indestructable flaps then it is in error IMO.
AW had conditions where flaps like gear would break above certain speeds it is not beyond the wit of HTC to do this for AH.
The excuse that HTC would find it difficult to establish the correct settings is entirely fatuous They have many and where they dont they apply judgement as they do across some FM's now. ....of course there will be folk who whine that their favourite ride is not modelled as they wish.where evidence is given and HTC judgement changes then they will correct stuff....as they do now for all other facets of the FM.
I note that CT will introduce variable "reliability" modelling certainly then stuff like flaps could have "grey areas" where there is not a dead line speed = flap damage point. However even if there was I would prefer to see flap usage combat forced within these points and pilots forced to apply judgement rather than have these things conveniently deploy or retract without risk.
-
If gear and ailerons can be modelled to break above certain conditions then so can flaps............there is not difference here.
I note that flaps can be deployed at differing speeds in AH as can gear (F4U) where the model should allow it.
While there has been numerous debates concerning speeds flaps/gears may or may not be deployed, the criteria under which HTC operates is simple: they use the flight manuals. There is no arbitration upto which point the gears or flaps may 'safely be used' - there is only a limit, and when that limit is exceeded it breaks.
Thus, HT gave us a definite answer on this matter - if people don't want auto-retraction, then the only alternative is immediate malfunctioning at the exactly the same speed limits as current.
If this what you want?
I care nothing for IL2 if it has gamey almost indestructable flaps then it is in error IMO.
Au contraire.
IL-2 has three settings: Combat, Take-off, and Landing. The exact angle of deployment corresponding to the three stages varies upon each craft, as every aircraft uses different angles for different purposes. This is rather more "realistic" than AH in which every plane is given a multi stage flap with about 5~6 stages, since pilots would usually set flap angles as they've memorized according to situations.
The first notch of flaps are "combat" settings. Like other people have mentioned in AH forums in various debates, many planes of WW2 did have a combat setting, or rather, a flap setting in which a very small amount of flaps may be deployed at varying speeds. P-51s or P-47s may have a setting named "combat setting" in the first place, but remember that Crumpp came up with a document showing 109s also used 10 degrees of flaps as 'combat settings', though the setting wasn't particularly named, as its US counterparts.
Thus, the "combat" setting in IL-2 corresponds to that, a slight angle of combat-assisting settings - and in IL-2, flaps don't jam in this setting. However, take-off or landing setting(which would correspond to two~three notches of flaps, and full flaps respectively, in AH) jams at about 240~250mph (390km/h~400km/h, actually) IAS.
240~250mph IAS...! Considering that manufacturers would set the limits with regards to a certain 'safety margin', a flap deployment speed listed as 180~190mph in a flight manual, could have an actual 'margin' of some 50~60mph ... and that's how IL-2 models it.
Really, on paper, IL-2 hardly seems "gamey" at all. Indestructible? No sir. They model a very convincing "jamming point" for take-off and landing settings, and then employ a 'combat' setting for the very first notch of flaps which can be used at high speeds for all planes.
Flaps modelled as above, would probably suit you, does it not?
I note that CT will introduce variable "reliability" modelling certainly then stuff like flaps could have "grey areas" where there is not a dead line speed = flap damage point.
Let's say a flap speed limit is listed as 200mph IAS in the manuals. The pilot deploys flaps, forgets to retract, and his plane exceeds the limit, reaching 220mph IAS.
At which point should the flap fail? Total randomness? 10 seconds after? 30 seconds? 1 minute? 5 minutes? Perhaps never?
Or should HT consider the concept of an arbitrary "margin"? Give the plane a 50mph margin in which the flaps can still be maintained without a "realistic chance" of failing? Should the game start calculating the chance of failure after the plane exceeds even this "margin" of 250mph IAS?
However even if there was I would prefer to see flap usage combat forced within these points and pilots forced to apply judgement rather than have these things conveniently deploy or retract without risk.
Think of it this way.
Some people here complain that the flaps auto-retract at critical situations, and they lose control of their plane, so they don't want it. Now, most of those people are in reality, respectable pilots of renowned skill. Just look at all those P-38 pilots complaining - they're part of the L33T in the MA.
And yet, they complain their flaps auto-retract. Why does that happen?
Simple: they mad a bad judgement.
If it was real life, they'd never push their lumbering twin-engined plane into a death-defying knife-fight against all those lighter, nimbler, better maneuvering planes everytime. They'd usually prefer not to go into a situation where they'd have to make a dangerous judgement to keep the flaps down and risk damage to the plane.
Ofcourse, this being a game, they enjoy the thrill of the fight, the opportunity to boast skill, rather than fear a failure of equipment which may result in one's own death. So they engage the planes, go into a bare-knuckle fight, just keep the flaps down as always, and then fail to keep the plane under speed. The flaps retract, they lose control, they die, and then they complain here.
Even with the comfy auto-retract function in place, they still make bad judgements. You think they'll suddenly stop doing what they like, and start making better judgements if auto-retraction is removed?
They'll do the same thing they always do. They enter a loop fight, bring down the flaps, woops, here's the end of the loop, plane speeds up. The speed indicator shows that your plane is going over the recommended speed for your current flap setting. Are they gonna retract the flaps manually?
No way. They'll just keep it down, and keep fighting. This time, instead of auto-retracting, their flaps probably will be damaged sometime during this repetitive looping. The damage will lead to their deaths, and then they'll start complaining again - this time, they complain about their flaps jam too often. Subsequentially, they'll start asking for a higher "margin". A wider shade of "grey" as you'd put it, until finally, they get to maintain flaps probably upto 300mph IAS or something, without imminent danger of failure.
I know this isn't what you are asking. But this is, inevitably, where it leads to.
The only time people ever use "good" and "realistic" judgement in game, is when it is forced upon them.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
While there has been numerous debates concerning speeds flaps/gears may or may not be deployed, the criteria under which HTC operates is simple: they use the flight manuals. There is no arbitration upto which point the gears or flaps may 'safely be used' - there is only a limit, and when that limit is exceeded it breaks.
Thus, HT gave us a definite answer on this matter - if people don't want auto-retraction, then the only alternative is immediate malfunctioning at the exactly the same speed limits as current.
If this what you want? if its the only alternative then yes
Au contraire.
IL-2 has three settings: Combat, Take-off, and Landing. The exact angle of deployment corresponding to the three stages varies upon each craft, as every aircraft uses different angles for different purposes. This is rather more "realistic" than AH in which every plane is given a multi stage flap with about 5~6 stages, since pilots would usually set flap angles as they've memorized according to situations.
The first notch of flaps are "combat" settings. Like other people have mentioned in AH forums in various debates, many planes of WW2 did have a combat setting, or rather, a flap setting in which a very small amount of flaps may be deployed at varying speeds. P-51s or P-47s may have a setting named "combat setting" in the first place, but remember that Crumpp came up with a document showing 109s also used 10 degrees of flaps as 'combat settings', though the setting wasn't particularly named, as its US counterparts.
Thus, the "combat" setting in IL-2 corresponds to that, a slight angle of combat-assisting settings - and in IL-2, flaps don't jam in this setting. However, take-off or landing setting(which would correspond to two~three notches of flaps, and full flaps respectively, in AH) jams at about 240~250mph (390km/h~400km/h, actually) IAS.
240~250mph IAS...! Considering that manufacturers would set the limits with regards to a certain 'safety margin', a flap deployment speed listed as 180~190mph in a flight manual, could have an actual 'margin' of some 50~60mph ... and that's how IL-2 models it.
Really, on paper, IL-2 hardly seems "gamey" at all. Indestructible? No sir. They model a very convincing "jamming point" for take-off and landing settings, and then employ a 'combat' setting for the very first notch of flaps which can be used at high speeds for all planes.
Flaps modelled as above, would probably suit you, does it not?
no it sounds gamey I want flaps set by the pilot not pre set "take off" "landing and gamey "combat"
Let's say a flap speed limit is listed as 200mph IAS in the manuals. The pilot deploys flaps, forgets to retract, and his plane exceeds the limit, reaching 220mph IAS.
At which point should the flap fail? Total randomness? 10 seconds after? 30 seconds? 1 minute? 5 minutes? Perhaps never?
at what ever setting HTC deem appropriate
Or should HT consider the concept of an arbitrary "margin"? Give the plane a 50mph margin in which the flaps can still be maintained without a "realistic chance" of failing? Should the game start calculating the chance of failure after the plane exceeds even this "margin" of 250mph IAS?
see above answer
Think of it this way.
Some people here complain that the flaps auto-retract at critical situations, and they lose control of their plane, so they don't want it. Now, most of those people are in reality, respectable pilots of renowned skill. Just look at all those P-38 pilots complaining - they're part of the L33T in the MA.
And yet, they complain their flaps auto-retract. Why does that happen?
Simple: they mad a bad judgement.
If it was real life, they'd never push their lumbering twin-engined plane into a death-defying knife-fight against all those lighter, nimbler, better maneuvering planes everytime. They'd usually prefer not to go into a situation where they'd have to make a dangerous judgement to keep the flaps down and risk damage to the plane.
Ofcourse, this being a game, they enjoy the thrill of the fight, the opportunity to boast skill, rather than fear a failure of equipment which may result in one's own death. So they engage the planes, go into a bare-knuckle fight, just keep the flaps down as always, and then fail to keep the plane under speed. The flaps retract, they lose control, they die, and then they complain here.
Even with the comfy auto-retract function in place, they still make bad judgements. You think they'll suddenly stop doing what they like, and start making better judgements if auto-retraction is removed?
They'll do the same thing they always do. They enter a loop fight, bring down the flaps, woops, here's the end of the loop, plane speeds up. The speed indicator shows that your plane is going over the recommended speed for your current flap setting. Are they gonna retract the flaps manually?
No way. They'll just keep it down, and keep fighting. This time, instead of auto-retracting, their flaps probably will be damaged sometime during this repetitive looping. The damage will lead to their deaths, and then they'll start complaining again - this time, they complain about their flaps jam too often. Subsequentially, they'll start asking for a higher "margin". A wider shade of "grey" as you'd put it, until finally, they get to maintain flaps probably upto 300mph IAS or something, without imminent danger of failure.
whines have not brought results here yet you argue that flaps whines will. There is no evidence to support such a claim...whines are ignored until evidence is given to support the claim and then HTC may consider an up grade
I know this isn't what you are asking. But this is, inevitably, where it leads to.
The only time people ever use "good" and "realistic" judgement in game, is when it is forced upon them.
Poor judgement has consequences with auto retract that consequence is removed
I say bring in the abiliity to damage a flap just as there is the ability to lose an aileroin on a Boston just the same.. just as unforgiving then you will see flapos deployed with the caution they should be.
-
I have to say at least as far as available flap settings AH has it WAY more correct than IL-2.
Whether the actual degree of deployment varies, IL-2's three-notch rule is WAY too generic and incorrect across the board. Some aircraft only had settings for flaps up or flaps down and NOTHING in between. IL-2 doesn't model this. Some aircraft had MORE than just three settings (the previously mentioned F4Us, for one). IL-2 doesn't model this.
IL-2 is FAR from being a source on trustworthy flight data (even as of the last version they STILL didn't fix the R2800 overheat issue).
-
Actually IL-2 does model the 2-stage flap design.
Take up a Sea/Spitfire or a Hurricane and you'll see that the flaps are of only 2 stages.
But I absolutely agree with the other flap settings. 'Combat, Takeoff, Landing?' like wtf? Additionally, the flaps tend to not do much. Slotted flaps don't feel any different from split flaps in the game.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Think of it this way.
Some people here complain that the flaps auto-retract at critical situations, and they lose control of their plane, so they don't want it. Now, most of those people are in reality, respectable pilots of renowned skill. Just look at all those P-38 pilots complaining - they're part of the L33T in the MA.
And yet, they complain their flaps auto-retract. Why does that happen?
Simple: they mad a bad judgement.
If it was real life, they'd never push their lumbering twin-engined plane into a death-defying knife-fight against all those lighter, nimbler, better maneuvering planes everytime. They'd usually prefer not to go into a situation where they'd have to make a dangerous judgement to keep the flaps down and risk damage to the plane.
Ofcourse, this being a game, they enjoy the thrill of the fight, the opportunity to boast skill, rather than fear a failure of equipment which may result in one's own death. So they engage the planes, go into a bare-knuckle fight, just keep the flaps down as always, and then fail to keep the plane under speed. The flaps retract, they lose control, they die, and then they complain here.
Even with the comfy auto-retract function in place, they still make bad judgements. You think they'll suddenly stop doing what they like, and start making better judgements if auto-retraction is removed?
They'll do the same thing they always do. They enter a loop fight, bring down the flaps, woops, here's the end of the loop, plane speeds up. The speed indicator shows that your plane is going over the recommended speed for your current flap setting. Are they gonna retract the flaps manually?
No way. They'll just keep it down, and keep fighting. This time, instead of auto-retracting, their flaps probably will be damaged sometime during this repetitive looping. The damage will lead to their deaths, and then they'll start complaining again - this time, they complain about their flaps jam too often. Subsequentially, they'll start asking for a higher "margin". A wider shade of "grey" as you'd put it, until finally, they get to maintain flaps probably upto 300mph IAS or something, without imminent danger of failure.
I know this isn't what you are asking. But this is, inevitably, where it leads to.
The only time people ever use "good" and "realistic" judgement in game, is when it is forced upon them.
LOL who pee'd in your Corn Flakes? :)
As one of many 38 drivers in the game I don't recall complaining about my Cartoon 38 at all. I'm happy to pretend in what HTC has given us. Having never flown a real 38 and never having flown real combat I'll just have to live with it over and over and over again no matter how many times I don't really die in my not really P38 :)
Considering how much time we've all wasted in our cartoon airplanes, anyone talking about good or realistic judgement needs to step back and relax.
We're all nuts :)
Excuse me while I go check my cyber oil pressure on the cyber left engine of my cyber P38G. it's been acting up as of late:aok
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
LOL who pee'd in your Corn Flakes? :)
As one of many 38 drivers in the game I don't recall complaining about my Cartoon 38 at all. I'm happy to pretend in what HTC has given us. Having never flown a real 38 and never having flown real combat I'll just have to live with it over and over and over again no matter how many times I don't really die in my not really P38 :)
Considering how much time we've all wasted in our cartoon airplanes, anyone talking about good or realistic judgement needs to step back and relax.
We're all nuts :)
Excuse me while I go check my cyber oil pressure on the cyber left engine of my cyber P38G. it's been acting up as of late:aok
I think Kweassa is talking about Lightning drivers such as Tac and myself.
For some reason, he just can't get it out of his head that we are not asking for something that will allow us to "game the game" or allow us to use flaps in situations where it wouldn't have been possible in real life. All I have asked for is the removal of the auto-retracting feature and replace it with a more realistic flap model, one that will model damage from such things as over speeding, battle damage, etc.
It is also quite possible that the reason why Kweassa is so against having a better, more realistic flap model is he probably has to rely on the hand holding, coddling feature that is the auto-retracting flaps. *shrug*
ack-ack
-
We know you are asking to game the system because you complain about the disadvantage the existing system gives you when any change would make it worse for you given HiTech's statement on it.
Given that you are whining about the current system hurting you I would be shocked if you are asking to be hurt more.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
We know you are asking to game the system because you complain about the disadvantage the existing system gives you when any change would make it worse for you given HiTech's statement on it.
Given that you are whining about the current system hurting you I would be shocked if you are asking to be hurt more.
Please explain how using a system that will model flap damage from things like over speeding and battle is asking to "game the game"?
Honestly, the auto-retracting flaps don't bother me, as 99.9% of the time I can catch it before I enter into a spin. I just want to have a more realistic flap system that not only models the the potential damage from over speeding but also other things like the effects of battle damage on the flaps (our current system models flap damage rather poorly).
To claim that the current flaps system is other than a hand holding feature to make the game more "user friendly" is just nonsense. I know it will never be changed, HiTech has said as much in previous threads despite some really good suggestions mentioned in the multitude of threads about this.
ack-ack
-
Damage modeling is the weakest part of AH. It has always been.
Asking for a damage model instead of auto retract is in principle a request for more realism. In practice it is a request for less. IIRC, HT stated that they have no good way of modeling such a thing as flap over speed/stress damage. Not only this is more complicated than the current damage model can support, there is also an extreme lack of data to model this by.
HTC has to make a choice: Model the pilot's hand retracting the flaps, even involuntarily (aka disciplined pilot flying by the manual), or start guessing and make up data required for a quasi-realistic damage model for the flaps. It is quite clear what they consider more 'realistic'.
-
Just to be clear, it is not a request for more realistic damage model in the flaps (though it would be nice). Its a request to FIX an issue in the current model which affects the P-38 almost exclusively.
Adding a second or 2 delay BEFORE the flap retracts is all I really ask for. The issue affects the plane for a split second and only happens when the plane is under high G turns that are bleeding the speed rapidly. It does NOT give the P-38 additional manouverability... it CORRECTS it.
Think about it.. if they retract at 200mph and the plane only reaches 200mph for half a second before high-g turn e-bleed down to 120mph.. then WHAT is the squealing reason to have the flaps retract? In any other plane it doesnt matter at all but in the 38 that damn flap setting has increased the wing area by almost 1/3rd and the effect of magically losing the flap for that half second WHILE pulling high G's causes loss of control in the 38 (and i remind you in AH the flaps are UP or DOWN there is no gradual retraction of the flap into the wing which would smooth out the effect) Hence this needs to be FIXED)
-
Originally posted by Tac
(and i remind you in AH the flaps are UP or DOWN there is no gradual retraction of the flap into the wing which would smooth out the effect) Hence this needs to be FIXED)
Is this true? within flap increments does the FM step the addition or removal of flaps (as in on/off) or does it move via some sort of curve from one setting to the next?
-
It should be a progressive effect, not an on off.
-
Last I heard karnak, the sound and visual animation is progressive but the effect is instant.
It matches what you feel in the game as well. When near stall speeds in unstable planes like the F4U you hit the flaps and instantly get control response as well as a much tighter turn performance. It doesnt take it 2 or 3 seconds while the flap deploys for you to feel the effect of the flaps.
-
Originally posted by Tac
Just to be clear, it is not a request for more realistic damage model in the flaps (though it would be nice). Its a request to FIX an issue in the current model which affects the P-38 almost exclusively.
Adding a second or 2 delay BEFORE the flap retracts is all I really ask for. The issue affects the plane for a split second and only happens when the plane is under high G turns that are bleeding the speed rapidly. It does NOT give the P-38 additional manouverability... it CORRECTS it.
Think about it.. if they retract at 200mph and the plane only reaches 200mph for half a second before high-g turn e-bleed down to 120mph.. then WHAT is the squealing reason to have the flaps retract? In any other plane it doesnt matter at all but in the 38 that damn flap setting has increased the wing area by almost 1/3rd and the effect of magically losing the flap for that half second WHILE pulling high G's causes loss of control in the 38 (and i remind you in AH the flaps are UP or DOWN there is no gradual retraction of the flap into the wing which would smooth out the effect) Hence this needs to be FIXED)
All I fly for the most part is the 38, with the 38G being the favorite. I just haven't run into this and as anyone who flies anywhere near me knows I'm low and slow with the flaps hanging out all the time.
Do you have a film where it's happening to you Tac? I'd be really curious to see it.