Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on March 08, 2008, 03:46:29 PM
-
It seems to me that most aircraft in AH perform in a manner that is a reasonable approximation of the real thing. But some are well off of their real world performance.
I understand that the F6F-5, Ki-61-I and P-51s underperform in AH. The F6F-5 is ~20mph too slow at alt, I don't know about the deck speed. The data Widewing posted shows the Ki-61 turning about like a FM2 in US Navy tests, but in AH it turns more like a P-47. The P-51s lost a lot of turn capability in one of the resent revisions and are now out turned by P-47s.
It seems to me that the F4Us, Hurricanes and maybe Bf110s overperform. The F4Us gain a suspicious ammount of lift from their flaps, allowing them to out turn aircraft with much, much lower wing loading. The Hurricanes may roll 50% too fast and seem not to suffer manueverabilty hits from high speed dives despite having fabric ailerons. The Bf110s might be a bit agile, hard to say though.
DOes anybody have any data on any issues (even data that says I am wrong) with AH aircraft flight models?
-
On the 110, I'd say the C was more of an issue than the G.
-
On the 110, I'd say the C was more of an issue than the G.
I am not sure of that. The G is used an awful lot and in reality it was a dog. That may be a function of its guns for base attack, but it seems to get a lot of fighter use too. I think if there are roll rate and/or turn rate issues with the C they likely carry over to the G as well.
-
Ki-61. I love the bird, it's so underrated and underestimated.
-
The P-47s and their gas tanks. The fact that I love Jugs so much just increases the pain when, after every dive bombing run, a magic bullet find the gas tanks and Im unable to bring it back to base. The T-bolt had self sealing tanks in real life and shouldnt leak after hits any more then any other Yank fighter. Its a terrific aircraft and had a huge impact on history.
Has anyone else noticed this? Most of all the "N" models?
-
It seems to me that most aircraft in AH perform in a manner that is a reasonable approximation of the real thing. But some are well off of their real world performance.
I understand that the F6F-5, Ki-61-I and P-51s underperform in AH. The F6F-5 is ~20mph too slow at alt, I don't know about the deck speed. The data Widewing posted shows the Ki-61 turning about like a FM2 in US Navy tests, but in AH it turns more like a P-47. The P-51s lost a lot of turn capability in one of the resent revisions and are now out turned by P-47s.
It seems to me that the F4Us, Hurricanes and maybe Bf110s overperform. The F4Us gain a suspicious ammount of lift from their flaps, allowing them to out turn aircraft with much, much lower wing loading. The Hurricanes may roll 50% too fast and seem not to suffer manueverabilty hits from high speed dives despite having fabric ailerons. The Bf110s might be a bit agile, hard to say though.
DOes anybody have any data on any issues (even data that says I am wrong) with AH aircraft flight models?
I can make a quantitative comparison to show why the P-51's turn ability is comparitavely correct. However, my comparison seems to be countered by annecdotal evidence to the contrary. What I will say is that to do so to a degree that approaches the detail that HTC uses to model flight in game would take many hours. So, given my knowledge of aerodynamics, I can easily push the "I believe" button for the P-51 in game.
Furthermore, lets assume that the same math equations used to control flight dynamics in game are used for every aircraft (i.e. 2+2=4 for every plane). Wouldn't it be safe to assume that, unless there has been some sort of handicapping by HTC, that all planes perform identically, with respect to their relationship with all other aircraft in the plane set? Given that assumption, perhaps its the data with which the math equations are acting upon that is, or should be, the focus of our research?
For example, does anyone know a resource that shows the aileron area, station on wing, and maximum deflections up and down, for the Hurricane? If, for example, the aileron in AH is modelled with a +/- 30 degree deflection value, and in real life, it only deflected +/- 25 degrees, then there could be an inconsistency. I've got a feeling that each aircraft is thoroughly researched prior to being modelled, but given that some information on these aircraft is missing or left out of the historical record, there may have been some extrapolation done to make up for any omitted information.
-
Stoney,
I think it is pretty safe to assume the game calculations are global and it is the data we are looking at. But that data is very broad. For example, it is Pyro who sets stick forces that limit aileron and elevator travel based on speed, not the game. I guess the Ki-61 and F6F-5 might be the biggest examples of aircraft that are under performing if the P-51 is doing what it should.
-
Im not an expert on these but I would say 190 A8.
I have read real pilots stories about it and they say it was really nice plane to fly. I just dont beleive it was that bad what we have now.
-
I would like to see the mossie looked at. I find it hard to believe that the mossie was unable to achieve a sufficient AoA to stall the plane above ~160mph. At lower speeds in a turn, if no rudder input is added, the stick can be pulled right back with little fear of stalling (the plane may wobble but can be corrected with aileron input). It's weird, it feels as if it has it's own personal stall limiter installed.
-
Thrila I'd noticed that too when I flew the mossie.. Did you try trimming it?
-
I believe so, though i would have to test it out to be positive. I ought to note as long as the mossie isn't nose high it can be hauled about in turns at low speed with little trouble. If it is nose high it will require a little less abrupt pulling of the stick but can be done with near full elevator
-
110c has a very strange stall that resembles the old mossie stall. Never noticed it until I used it exclusively for about a week in the AvA. Harder to trigger than the mossie, but just as deadly.
Also, obviously the Ta-192 needs some love.
-
I would like to see the mossie looked at. I find it hard to believe that the mossie was unable to achieve a sufficient AoA to stall the plane above ~160mph. At lower speeds in a turn, if no rudder input is added, the stick can be pulled right back with little fear of stalling (the plane may wobble but can be corrected with aileron input). It's weird, it feels as if it has it's own personal stall limiter installed.
That is correct. The elevator feels as if it stiffens - something like 109s experience but at much higher speeds.
It almost feels as if the stall limiter is on.
F6F being 20 mph too slow, is one of the most important things to fix - perhaps together with a new 3D model. The current one is outdated and features a wrong and annoying vertical canopy bar.
The P51 and F4Us flight model issues only refer to flying with full flaps extended. Without flaps, their relative performance seems quite alright. The over usage of flaps in this game skews the relative performances and makes comparisons to real data very difficult. This is not how they flew and tested back then.
-
The P-47s and their gas tanks. The fact that I love Jugs so much just increases the pain when, after every dive bombing run, a magic bullet find the gas tanks and Im unable to bring it back to base. The T-bolt had self sealing tanks in real life and shouldnt leak after hits any more then any other Yank fighter. Its a terrific aircraft and had a huge impact on history.
Has anyone else noticed this? Most of all the "N" models?
Yah, they are pretty much the only thing I can get kills in, and it seems like every other ping is 'main fuel'--Ive gotten to bringing 75% and no drops (only 7 minutes more fuel than 50+ 1 drop), and leaving the 'aux' tank for last, as it lasts 10 min at max throttle
-
The G is used an awful lot and in reality it was a dog.
You can never rely on AH to tell you which aircraft performed well in the actual war. The requirements of actually trying to survive, among many other important factors, are just too different from what we do.
Otherwise, I'd like to see some math to back up the claims, though the F6F complaint seems to have merit.
-
yeah the 190a-8 was a much better planes then it is in here, at lower alts it could out turn the mustang
-
"On the 110, I'd say the C was more of an issue than the G."
"I am not sure of that. The G is used an awful lot and in reality it was a dog. That may be a function of its guns for base attack, but it seems to get a lot of fighter use too. I think if there are roll rate and/or turn rate issues with the C they likely carry over to the G as well."
What issues do 110s have?
-C+
-
"On the 110, I'd say the C was more of an issue than the G."
"I am not sure of that. The G is used an awful lot and in reality it was a dog. That may be a function of its guns for base attack, but it seems to get a lot of fighter use too. I think if there are roll rate and/or turn rate issues with the C they likely carry over to the G as well."
What issues do 110s have?
-C+
-
The P-47s and their gas tanks. The fact that I love Jugs so much just increases the pain when, after every dive bombing run, a magic bullet find the gas tanks and Im unable to bring it back to base. The T-bolt had self sealing tanks in real life and shouldnt leak after hits any more then any other Yank fighter. Its a terrific aircraft and had a huge impact on history.
Has anyone else noticed this? Most of all the "N" models?
the self sealing fuel tanks only worked with mg bullet and cannons make a to big of a hole for them to work
-
yeah the 190a-8 was a much better planes then it is in here, at lower alts it could out turn the mustang
Uh, no, no way with that much higher wingloading and not-very-useful flaps. The people at that history who did the ?research? for that episode of "Dogfights" pretty obviously got "outurn" confused with "out-roll".
Not that I don't think we need a better 190A...something faster than the A5, less of a pig in turn and climb than an A8.
-
"On the 110, I'd say the C was more of an issue than the G."
"I am not sure of that. The G is used an awful lot and in reality it was a dog. That may be a function of its guns for base attack, but it seems to get a lot of fighter use too. I think if there are roll rate and/or turn rate issues with the C they likely carry over to the G as well."
What issues do 110s have?
-C+
-
During the BoB the 110 wasn't agile enough to fight the Hurricanes and Spitfires on equal terms. However it was still fast and was successful in making B&Z attacks against British fighters, usually while altmonkeying. Later in the war pure turning performance was losing relevance to pure speed, and the 110's deficiency was poor speed and climb while it was considered superior to the 109 as a gun platform and smoothness of flight. The F model was generally considered the best fighter by the 110 pilots with the G taking second place. Note that the G more often than not flew loaded down with extra weapons and equipment. Very few flew them clean as fighters as often seen in AH.
I think the 110 has an undeserved bad reputation fueled by Discovery Channel quality (or lack there of) historical accuracy. The 110 was one of the great workhorse Luftwaffe planes that like the 109 and Ju 88 flew till the end of the war. After the BoB it was usually relegated to ground attack roles or long-range patrol duty. However some were used as heavy fighters in the air war in the west, usually against USAAF daylight raids. The 110 also created a lot of aces, not only in the night-fighter role, but also in the daylight heavy fighter role. More than 70 Luftwaffe pilots made ace status in the 110 in daylight operations. The best of them, Eduard Tratt, had 38 kills to his credit when he was killed in February 1944, including three Hurricanes (1940) and five P-38's (1943-44).