Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: jimson on September 09, 2009, 11:44:35 AM
-
When you first start playing this game you want to dogfight, because that is the ultimate shooting experience, so you choose a spitfire.
Maybe the spit 8 as recommended in some of the trainers files. Then perhaps a trainer tells you the 16 is more competitive in the M/As.
You learn that you can get some kills but usually get killed by better pilots because your gunnery, acm and s/a suck.
Then you have to fly a spit 8 or 9 because of eny or a seafire off a carrier and you can get some kills but usually get killed by better pilots because your gunnery, acm and s/a suck.
The 16 is not a magic plane that turns a noob into the red baron, you would have to be a fairly decent pilot in the first place to be able to utilize it's advantages and would probably have the perkies to afford it, were it perked.
I started flying the the 8, 9 and seafire much more now because I find I do about as well and folks are less likely to think any kills I get should have an asterisk next to them.
As bad as I am, I have managed to kill a couple of 16's.
-
Yup, sounds pretty accurate.
People like to use the Spit XVI as an excuse as to why they didn't really lose, i.e. put an asterisk on the death.
-
A spit is a spit. We used them in H2H for the new folks to get their feet wet and to get a little confidence. While a couple are a little less forgiving... they are all forgiving as far as mistakes go.
Nothing wrong with flying a spit. When and if you want to fly another bird you'll feel your starting all over again.
I have little problems killing spits of any flavor..... but facts are facts.
-
A6M5 's also easily out turn SPIT 16's in slow speed turn fights. :aok
-
Yup, sounds pretty accurate.
People like to use the Spit XVI as an excuse as to why they didn't really lose, i.e. put an asterisk on the death.
Quoted for truth.
-
Actually, the game does put an asterisk of sorts on every XVI I kill by giving me more perks than if I had killed a Spit 8, even if it's a first-day noob flying it. :t
-
A6M5 's also easily out turn SPIT 16's in slow speed turn fights. :aok
A6M2 out turns 'em all, but unfortunately my deceased grandmother is faster and the A6M2 explodes if another pilot sneezes within 1K of it.
-
How well or poorly the average player does in a given airplane is evidence of little except what a Herculean labor the trainers have in front of them. I could post film after film of Spits going down to a P-38, but it would demonstrate little other than the fact that many Spits are being flown with almost incredible incompetence.
Jimson, not to be elitist, but if, for instance, right off the top of your head can't tell me the difference between turn rate and turn radius, nose-to-tail vs. nose-to-nose turning, and the implications thereof, you aren't at a point where you can actually make intelligent comparisons between the various models in AHII.
-
Good post Jimson. I feel the same way about the 51. Folks my make fun of her but she can get the job done with style. Like a well flown spitty. Fly it well sir :salute
-
A6M2 out turns 'em all, but unfortunately my deceased grandmother is faster and the A6M2 explodes if another pilot sneezes within 1K of it.
Zero out turns I16's or the Brewster too? :confused:
-
How well or poorly the average player does in a given airplane is evidence of little except what a Herculean labor the trainers have in front of them. I could post film after film of Spits going down to a P-38, but it would demonstrate little other than the fact that many Spits are being flown with almost incredible incompetence.
Jimson, not to be elitist, but if, for instance, right off the top of your head can't tell me the difference between turn rate and turn radius, nose-to-tail vs. nose-to-nose turning, and the implications thereof, you aren't at a point where you can actually make intelligent comparisons between the various models in AHII.
True, and that was my point. Everyone knows the Spit 16 has a better roll rate, but can a noob really use that to his advantage as much as an "elitist" could.
-
Good post Jimson. I feel the same way about the 51. Folks my make fun of her but she can get the job done with style. Like a well flown spitty. Fly it well sir :salute
Teh 51 is teh suxxor
-
Jimson, not to be elitist, but if, for instance, right off the top of your head can't tell me the difference between turn rate and turn radius, nose-to-tail vs. nose-to-nose turning, and the implications thereof, you aren't at a point where you can actually make intelligent comparisons between the various models in AHII.
I think that's just a bit harsh, not to mention inaccurate. You don't need to be an expert on ACM terms to see and experience the differences in the way different planes fly.
Jimson is on the right path, the one most of us have taken. You start with planes that help compensate for your inexperience. As your experience grows, you move on to planes that offer more of a challenge.
- oldman
-
I think that's just a bit harsh, not to mention inaccurate. You don't need to be an expert on ACM terms to see and experience the differences in the way different planes fly.
Jimson is on the right path, the one most of us have taken. You start with planes that help compensate for your inexperience. As your experience grows, you move on to planes that offer more of a challenge.
- oldman
No, actually he is proving my point. The performance differences in various models of spitfires can be lost on someone like me. I cannot effectively use to my advantage, the better characteristics of the 16 over the 8.
Anyone who can, has some skill and would be able to fly a "lesser" spit with success as well.
-
I think that's just a bit harsh, not to mention inaccurate. You don't need to be an expert on ACM terms to see and experience the differences in the way different planes fly.
Jimson is on the right path, the one most of us have taken. You start with planes that help compensate for your inexperience. As your experience grows, you move on to planes that offer more of a challenge.
- oldman
Nope, knowing these principles is all important if you want to compare plane performance. And when it comes to things like the example I gave (the difference between rate and radius and the implications thereof), they just are not the sort of thing people just grasp intuitively that I have seen.
-
No, actually he is proving my point. The performance differences in various models of spitfires can be lost on someone like me. I cannot effectively use to my advantage, the better characteristics of the 16 over the 8.
Anyone who can has some skill and would be able to fly a "lesser" spit with success as well.
Well, truth is VIIIs and IXs are not *exactly* lesser Spits...not completely anyway, although I think the XVI's roll rate is more MA valuable than the VIII's slight edge in turn rate and radius.
-
Well, truth is VIIIs and IXs are not *exactly* lesser Spits..
A relative term.
-
Pretty sure he means the VIII and IX are very competitive in the arenas. You can almost never go wrong in selecting them for a wide variety of combat conditions. My only gripe with the IX is the difficulty of extending away from a bad position.
-
It's kind of sad that HTC's 3D modeling of the Spit 16 is pretty poor. I mean just look at this picture, they look nothing alike!
(http://www.superiorambulance.com/Images/Helicopter%20InAir%20.jpg)
-
Pft. Our game doesn't seem to reflect what pilots thought about RL spits...
The Mk.VIII was superior to both the IX and the XVI. More fuel, stronger wings and a retractable tailwheel. Jeff Quill's favourite Merlin Spit.
The XVI was really more of bast*rd child. The ONLY reason why it was built from what I gather is because Rolls-Royce couldn't build enough Merlins for the LF.Mk.IX Spitfires so Packard was given license to build Merlin 66's designated 266's in RAF service.
This engine actually engaged and disengaged its 2nd supercharger impeller at different heights than the 66 and pilots actually thought that these XVI's were reject Mk.IX's! There's actually a thread on the Spit XVI's performance curve... it should differ from the Spit VIII's though the XVI uses the *same* engine, albeit, a copied; slightly different version.
-
I think that's just a bit harsh, not to mention inaccurate. You don't need to be an expert on ACM terms to see and experience the differences in the way different planes fly.
Jimson is on the right path, the one most of us have taken. You start with planes that help compensate for your inexperience. As your experience grows, you move on to planes that offer more of a challenge.
- oldman
I agree with you man. Doesn't matter what plane you fly, and you will get a lot of crap for flying the Spits because "they are so easy to fly", but it still takes a talented pilot to be able to get on the nme aircraft's 6, get a good solution, stay with them while they jerk all to hell, and then land hits. Good Post!!! :salute
-
Nope, knowing these principles is all important if you want to compare plane performance. And when it comes to things like the example I gave (the difference between rate and radius and the implications thereof), they just are not the sort of thing people just grasp intuitively that I have seen.
Pretty simple if you just explain it briefly. Turn rate is how fast the nose comes around, turn radius has to do with the size of the circle you make when turning.
Rate is more important to get your nose in position for a shot - whether it be a tracking shot or a snapshot. Radius is more important in a low speed TnB fight because the guy with the larger radius will perpetually be stuck in lag pursuit.
The turn numbers on the 8 vs 16 are VERY close from Spatula's stats. 16 has a tighter radius surprisingly and the 8 has a better rate (by about 1 dps).
-
Pretty simple if you just explain it briefly. Turn rate is how fast the nose comes around, turn radius has to do with the size of the circle you make when turning.
Rate is more important to get your nose in position for a shot - whether it be a tracking shot or a snapshot. Radius is more important in a low speed TnB fight because the guy with the larger radius will perpetually be stuck in lag pursuit.
Sustained turn rate wins nose-to-tail turning fights. Which simply means both guys turning the same direction, i.e, perhaps the majority of turn fights you see. This bit of knowledge is surprisingly uncommon.
Which is why if someone says "Which turns better? Spit or Corsair? P-47 D-11 or Ta-152" to be honest one has to say "It depends" :devil
Another common saw "Reduce throttle to turn better..." Well...not exactly. If you are in a nose-to-tail chase at or below corner speed, reducing throttle and speed to further below corner velocity is the last thing you want to do.
-
Sustained turn rate wins nose-to-tail turning fights. Which simply means both guys turning the same direction. Which is most turn fights you see.
Which is why if someone says "Which turns better? Spit or Corsair? P-47 D-11 or Ta-152" to be honest one has to say "It depends" :devil
I wouldn't say sustained turn rate wins nose-to-tail fights. Consider an extreme example - suppose one pilot had a turn radius of zero, while the other had any non-zero turn radius. If they were engaged in a turning fight and pilot, the pilot with the bigger turn radius will NEVER be able to get his nose to point towards the guy with zero radius. It helps to imagine the guy with zero radius in the center of the circle.
In any less extreme case, if the circle of a plane with a smaller radius is completely inside the circle of a second plane with larger radius and both were committed to a nose-to-tail turn fight, the "outside" plane once again will NEVER be able to get his nose pointed towards the tighter turner.
Addendum: if the smaller radius plane is only partially inside the bigger radius turn circle, that means the circles intersect at some point and the bigger radius plane will have a chance for a snapshot.
-
True in theory, in practice 1. Even the Zero doesn't have zero turn radius. :devil and 2. There is an upper practical limit to how much larger a real airplane's turn radius can be than another and it still be able to sustain a superior turn rate, make sense?
In practical terms, there can be quite a dramatic difference in turn radius and the plane with superior rate will still eventually be able to bring his nose to bear. For instance, Ta-152 vs. P-47D-11, the 152 will eventually come around on D-11 in a sustained nose-to-tail chase, even though the disparity in turn radius is fairly dramatic.
I wouldn't say sustained turn rate wins nose-to-tail fights. Consider an extreme example - suppose one pilot had a turn radius of zero, while the other had any non-zero turn radius. If they were engaged in a turning fight and pilot, the pilot with the bigger turn radius will NEVER be able to get his nose to point towards the guy with zero radius. It helps to imagine the guy with zero radius in the center of the circle.
In any less extreme case, if the circle of a plane with a smaller radius is completely inside the circle of a second plane with larger radius and both were committed to a nose-to-tail turn fight, the "outside" plane once again will NEVER be able to get his nose pointed towards the tighter turner.
Addendum: if the smaller radius plane is only partially inside the bigger radius turn circle, that means the circles intersect at some point and the bigger radius plane will have a chance for a snapshot.
-
True in theory, in practice 1. Even the Zero doesn't have zero turn radius. :devil and 2. There is an upper practical limit to how much larger a real airplane's turn radius can be than another and it still be able to sustain a superior turn rate, make sense?
In practical terms, there can be quite a dramatic difference in turn radius and the plane with superior rate will still eventually be able to bring his nose to bear. For instance, Ta-152 vs. P-47D-11, the 152 will eventually come around on D-11 in a sustained nose-to-tail chase, even though the disparity in turn radius is fairly dramatic.
Right, this is because nobody flies the "perfect" turn circles I described and because there's always a way out of "faster rate, slower radius" so that you can kill your opponent - extend away and come back. When all's said and done, I'd much have a faster rate because it's more flexible.
As far as the upper practical limit - we do have several examples of planes with a larger radius but faster rate than others.
Taking my example of a very small radius versus a larger one that turns with a faster rate in nose-tail: the guy with the faster rate will again be perpetually stuck in lag pursuit but will "go around" the circle much faster. Thus he will fly in front of the smaller radius plane's guns briefly, but then move out of them quickly. The problem with the small radius low rate turner is that he won't ever be able to "properly" line up a shot - the high rate turner WILL pass in front of his guns, but unexpectedly since he will be coming from underneath (ie from a blind spot).
-
Right, this is because nobody flies the "perfect" turn circles I described and because there's always a way out of "faster rate, slower radius" so that you can kill your opponent - extend away and come back. When all's said and done, I'd much have a faster rate because it's more flexible.
As far as the upper practical limit - we do have several examples of planes with a larger radius but faster rate than others.
Yes we do...my point is that the turn radius disparity would have to be VERY large for the guy with the faster sustained turn rate to fit in your example below. And as you correctly point out, the guy with superior turn rate can go out-of-plane to adjust the geometry.
Practical end of all of this is that there are several matches in AHII where the plane with notably larger turn radius can win the "turn fight" through superior sustained with rate, but this is not widely known. La* vs. F4U-1* and Ta-152 vs. D-11 are probably the best examples.
Taking my example of a very small radius versus a larger one that turns with a faster rate in nose-tail: the guy with the faster rate will again be perpetually stuck in lag pursuit but will "go around" the circle much faster. Thus he will fly in front of the smaller radius plane's guns briefly, but then move out of them quickly. The problem with the small radius low rate turner is that he won't ever be able to "properly" line up a shot - the high rate turner WILL pass in front of his guns, but unexpectedly since he will be coming from underneath (ie from a blind spot).
-
Re: SpitVIII vs. SpitXVI
Remember that these tests are usually done at some nominal fuel load, like 50%. It can skew the results if one plane carries a good deal more fuel. For example, P-47N vs. P-47D-40, the N actually has about the same flight time on 50% that the D-40 has on 75%, and the climb numbers come out much more similar when both are loaded this way.
-
Yes we do...my point is that the turn radius disparity would have to be VERY large for the guy with the faster sustained turn rate to fit in your example below. And as you correctly point out, the guy with superior turn rate can go out-of-plane to adjust the geometry.
In theory, turn rate that is ANY smaller CAN give rise to the situation I describe. Practically, the bigger the disparity the easier it is to achieve. For the practical purposes of our AH discussion, you're right.
Practical end of all of this is that there are several matches in AHII where the plane with notably larger turn radius can win the "turn fight" through superior sustained with rate, but this is not widely known. La* vs. F4U-1* and Ta-152 vs. D-11 are probably the best examples.
Right, as we both mentioned - I'd probably use out-of-plane maneuvering to adjust and go in.
Re: SpitVIII vs. SpitXVI
Remember that these tests are usually done at some nominal fuel load, like 50%. It can skew the results if one plane carries a good deal more fuel. For example, P-47N vs. P-47D-40, the N actually has about the same flight time on 50% that the D-40 has on 75%, and the climb numbers come out much more similar when both are loaded this way.
Good point, I completely forgot about this. The 8 does have quite a bit more fuel than the 16, which should account for the difference in "expectations" and "test numbers".
-
I'm waiting on Dan (Guppy/corkyjr) to post here. He knows about spits.
-
Nope, knowing these principles is all important if you want to compare plane performance. And when it comes to things like the example I gave (the difference between rate and radius and the implications thereof), they just are not the sort of thing people just grasp intuitively that I have seen.
The principles themselves are something you sense as you gain experience - as are many of the tactics, for that matter. There are plenty of people in AH who fly very effectively yet have never read Shaw. I read Shaw years ago and have absolutely no recollection of his discussion of nose-to-nose and nose-to-tail turns (and didn't he use different terms for those?). I'm nevertheless confident that I can fairly well assess differences in aircraft performance.
Reading up on tactics and physics is obviously a desirable thing to do; but I think it's unwise and unfair to tell someone he has no business opining on different aircraft if he can't first pass the written test.
- oldman
-
The principles themselves are something you sense as you gain experience - as are many of the tactics, for that matter. There are plenty of people in AH who fly very effectively yet have never read Shaw. I read Shaw years ago and have absolutely no recollection of his discussion of nose-to-nose and nose-to-tail turns (and didn't he use different terms for those?). I'm nevertheless confident that I can fairly well assess differences in aircraft performance.
Reading up on tactics and physics is obviously a desirable thing to do; but I think it's unwise and unfair to tell someone he has no business opining on different aircraft if he can't first pass the written test.
- oldman
Exactly...... while he's trying to recall that tactic and the dang name of it I'll be reacting to his move and instinctively countering. All my moves are under the same heading BWB (Baffle With Bs) :)
To learn the moves to make others miss and to gain the upper hand is great but until they become instinctive you'll not prosper much from your knowledge. The only way to become instinctive is stick time (practice)
-
I never meant it as an authoritative aircraft performance comparison.
Just a newer players take on the "Perk the super, uber, you're cheating if you fly it, Spit 16 controversy"
While I am familiar with the implications of nose to nose and nose to tail geometry, BnZ has me on turn rate and turn radius. It's difficult to understand them as separate concepts. Seems to me, the faster you can pull your nose around, the tighter your radius necessarily becomes.
Funny how I can get 30 replies on this, but when I post in the wishlist something I'm much more passionate about, increased opportunities for historical scenario game play, I have to beg to get about 5 replies.
Cheers,
Jimson
-
the faster you can pull your nose around
Your terminology is confusing you. Just because you turn a tighter radius does not necessarily mean you'll turn a quicker turn.
You also have another thought creeping in as sustainability. If you are turning really tight... how long can you sustain that before losing too much E?
-
the faster you can pull your nose around
Your terminology is confusing you. Just because you turn a tighter radius does not necessarily mean you'll turn a quicker turn.
You also have another thought creeping in as sustainability. If you are turning really tight... how long can you sustain that before losing too much E?
Ok, I see. A wider radius of turn, maintaining corner velocity, can be completed quicker than a tighter radius of turn in some instances.
-
:aok
... and if your target is turning a little tighter than you... your in lag pursuit.
-
Funny how I can get 30 replies on this, but when I post in the wishlist something I'm much more passionate about, increased opportunities for historical scenario game play, I have to beg to get about 5 replies.
Yup. It tells you what most of our community is passionate about. ;)
Btw, radius vs rate: You can cut a smaller radius than someone with a faster turn rate if you're going slow enough. For example:
Suppose that my velocity is 100ft/second, and I'm turning at 36 degrees/second. I will complete a full circle in 10 seconds, and my radius will be 1000ft/2pi = ~159ft.
Now, your velocity is 50ft/second, and you're turning at 30 degrees/second. You will complete a full circle in 12 seconds, and your radius will be 600ft/2pi = ~ 95ft.
In AH, it frequently happens that the Spitfire will out turn another aircraft type, but cut a larger turn radius, i.e. turning a full circle more quickly, but a larger circle.
-
Ok, I see. A wider radius of turn, maintaining corner velocity, can be completed quicker than a tighter radius of turn in some instances.
Correct. However, from Badboy's Bootstrap, it seems most planes turn tighter at corner velocity than they do sustained.
An easier way to see radius versus rate this is to consider the most extreme case possible - a stationary airplane (on the ground for example). It cannot turn AT ALL (zero rate), but its turn radius is necessarily zero. An ack turret has a positive turn rate but it also has zero radius.
The "practical" cases are there - but it's more subtle. Many other effects come in such as engine power, drag, etc - harder to clearly describe "why" it happens than the stationary plane case.
-
Yup. It tells you what most of our community is passionate about. ;)
Apparently we like arguing and looking like we know everything. FWIW, I have posted in your other thread, jimson, and I appreciate your points there.
-
Apparently we like arguing and looking like we know everything. FWIW, I have posted in your other thread, jimson, and I appreciate your points there.
Yes Boomer, thanks for the kind words.
-
I never meant it as an authoritative aircraft performance comparison.
Just a newer players take on the "Perk the super, uber, you're cheating if you fly it, Spit 16 controversy"
Welcome to AH.
Spitfires of all marks have been targeted as "easy-mode" planes since someone had the awesome/life-sucking idea that it might be neat to be a cartoon airplane pilot, fly around in cartoon airplanes and shoot at other cartoon airplanes being flown by other cartoon airplane pilots.
Almost every Spitfire has the same glarring weakness - a crappy rate of roll. This can be exploited.
The exception to this rule is the 16. That exception is the reason the 16 is loathed by many players.
Plainly speaking, if an aircraft has no real weakness to exploit, how do you fight it? You can only hope the driver is on a two-week trial. It climbs like a K4, rolls like a 190 and turns like... well... a Spit.
Spit 8 - I have no problem with it. Basically a 16 without the clipped wings and, thus, the rate of roll weakness. Great training tool for a new player in the LWMA - more than capable - but it's shortcoming can be exploited.
But the 16... think of any other airplane in the set - any one at all - and ask yourself how you might go about winning a co-alt, co-E, nose-on-nose engagement with a Spit 16...
...Beuller?
-
Oh, I can think of a bunch!
Tempest: extend away, turn around, and go for the HO.
Typhoon: extend away, turn around, and go for the HO.
La-7: extend away, turn around, and go for the HO.
190D-9: extend away, turn around, and go for the HO.
:cool:
-----------------
Actually, the F4U-4 has a legitimate chance against the XVI with equal pilots, but that's the only one I can think of.
-
<snicker>
-
Welcome to AH.
Spitfires of all marks have been targeted as "easy-mode" planes since someone had the awesome/life-sucking idea that it might be neat to be a cartoon airplane pilot, fly around in cartoon airplanes and shoot at other cartoon airplanes being flown by other cartoon airplane pilots.
Almost every Spitfire has the same glarring weakness - a crappy rate of roll. This can be exploited.
The exception to this rule is the 16. That exception is the reason the 16 is loathed by many players.
Plainly speaking, if an aircraft has no real weakness to exploit, how do you fight it? You can only hope the driver is on a two-week trial. It climbs like a K4, rolls like a 190 and turns like... well... a Spit.
Spit 8 - I have no problem with it. Basically a 16 without the clipped wings and, thus, the rate of roll weakness. Great training tool for a new player in the LWMA - more than capable - but it's shortcoming can be exploited.
But the 16... think of any other airplane in the set - any one at all - and ask yourself how you might go about winning a co-alt, co-E, nose-on-nose engagement with a Spit 16...
...Beuller?
True, enough.
At least there is ENY and you can't always fly the 16.
Yes, I have been noticing the difference in the past couple of days, because after this education of a thread, or because I am gaining some experience, I don't know.
Perhaps a reverse perk system, so new guys would stand a fighting chance?
-
True, enough.
At least there is ENY and you can't always fly the 16.
Yes, I have been noticing the difference in the past couple of days, because after this education of a thread, or because I am gaining some experience, I don't know.
Perhaps a reverse perk system, so new guys would stand a fighting chance?
Yeah the Spit16 holds all the advantages given a Co-E duel and same pilot skill.
So why would you ever want to engage a Spit16 in a Co-E 1v1 duel with a pilot the same skill level as you? I'd guess most of our virtual deaths are due to stupidity, not bad flying. Taking on a Spixteen Co-E 1v1 with a worse plane falls under the category of "stupidity" unless you're positive the pilot is much worse than you. Remember our game is not a series of Co-E 1v1s. Come in with friends, come in with alt, come in with more speed. There is a reason the Spixteen is not the only plane you see in the arenas.
As far as how to give newbies a fighting chance? I don't know - I've never been a "true" newbie. I've sucked, and am still not great, but I've been playing flight sims (and "space sims") since I was 6 years old, so concepts like turn radius and drawing lead are second nature.
You cannot make a clueless newbie into an ace simply by throwing them into a superior plane. The only thing that does is give them a better chance against other newbies. But hey, they are all flying Spixteens anyways!
When I see a Spixteen land 2 kills, I think "maybe they are a newb got lucky with a good plane, maybe they flew smart." For 3 kills "they probably flew smart." More than that, I don't put an asterisk by their name at all. Why?
Because I know if they aren't flying smart, there are guys like me out there in 190s (or whatever suitably "inferior plane") with an E advantage ready to blow the Spixteen out of the sky.
-
I will engage XVIs 1vs1 routinely in the 109G-6. I'm probably going to die if the other pilot is good, but more than 9 times out of 10 it's a beginner, I sucker him into a scissors fight and shoot him down.
I'm not a fantastic pilot, but I'm significantly better than average. ;) So noobs in XVIs don't hurt me much. Who they can hurt are average pilots trying to fly a more challenging aircraft. When the average pilot makes a mistake in his plane, he is frequently punished for it. The beginner in the XVI will be infrequently punished for mistakes, and has a good chance of shooting the average pilot down (if he's learned a little gunnery). The average pilots says to himself "I'm better than that noob! He just shot me down because of his airplane." Things are more complicated than that, of course. The airplane is only one variable of many, but it would be wrong to say the airplane didn't play a significant role in determining the outcome.
At this point, the average pilot will either have to suck it up and continue to be shot down by beginners while he learns his challenging plane, or he will go back to something easier himself.
-
Zero out turns I16's or the Brewster too? :confused:
Looks like this post got skipped. An A6M2 will out-turn a Brewster. I know absolutely nothing about the I-16, but it felt like it turned worse than the Brewster the two times I flew it. Not really good reference, but...
-
So your strategy is to bring more boys and alt to a fight? You realize that strategy is open to everyone.
Including everyone in spixteens. Down that path lies cesspool-ism.....
Yeah the Spit16 holds all the advantages given a Co-E duel and same pilot skill.
So why would you ever want to engage a Spit16 in a Co-E 1v1 duel with a pilot the same skill level as you? I'd guess most of our virtual deaths are due to stupidity, not bad flying. Taking on a Spixteen Co-E 1v1 with a worse plane falls under the category of "stupidity" unless you're positive the pilot is much worse than you. Remember our game is not a series of Co-E 1v1s. Come in with friends, come in with alt, come in with more speed. There is a reason the Spixteen is not the only plane you see in the arenas.
As far as how to give newbies a fighting chance? I don't know - I've never been a "true" newbie. I've sucked, and am still not great, but I've been playing flight sims (and "space sims") since I was 6 years old, so concepts like turn radius and drawing lead are second nature.
You cannot make a clueless newbie into an ace simply by throwing them into a superior plane. The only thing that does is give them a better chance against other newbies. But hey, they are all flying Spixteens anyways!
When I see a Spixteen land 2 kills, I think "maybe they are a newb got lucky with a good plane, maybe they flew smart." For 3 kills "they probably flew smart." More than that, I don't put an asterisk by their name at all. Why?
Because I know if they aren't flying smart, there are guys like me out there in 190s (or whatever suitably "inferior plane") with an E advantage ready to blow the Spixteen out of the sky.
-
And the 109Gs are fairly maneuverable and good-climbing planes all in all...
I will engage XVIs 1vs1 routinely in the 109G-6. I'm probably going to die if the other pilot is good, but more than 9 times out of 10 it's a beginner, I sucker him into a scissors fight and shoot him down.
I'm not a fantastic pilot, but I'm significantly better than average. ;) So noobs in XVIs don't hurt me much. Who they can hurt are average pilots trying to fly a more challenging aircraft. When the average pilot makes a mistake in his plane, he is frequently punished for it. The beginner in the XVI will be infrequently punished for mistakes, and has a good chance of shooting the average pilot down (if he's learned a little gunnery). The average pilots says to himself "I'm better than that noob! He just shot me down because of his airplane." Things are more complicated than that, of course. The airplane is only one variable of many, but it would be wrong to say the airplane didn't play a significant role in determining the outcome.
At this point, the average pilot will either have to suck it up and continue to be shot down by beginners while he learns his challenging plane, or he will go back to something easier himself.
-
And the 109Gs are fairly maneuverable and good-climbing planes all in all...
Absolutely. :)
-
I engage spixteens routinely in my pwny. If I'm not gaining a gun solution and losing ground, I simply choose an egress angle that will either take the spit some time to get to or will cause him to pull hard and burn E. Then I just leave him behind.
I don't owe the spixteen a kill. I'm not obligated to hang around until I'm fighting his fight. Unless of course I am miraculously 1v1 and he somehow has no friends in the immediate area. Then, unless he is a very clever pilot, forcing a spixteen to overshoot is a very simple matter.
-
So your strategy is to bring more boys and alt to a fight? You realize that strategy is open to everyone.
Including everyone in spixteens. Down that path lies cesspool-ism.....
Usually it's just more alt. Sure the strategy (more alt and more planes) is open to everyone, and I'm sure that's why everybody nowadays keeps complaining about getting ganged in the MAs. That's probably what you mean by "cesspool-ism" which has more to do with the horde than alt. I see the problem, and I've felt it. I've been on the receiving end being ganged by 5 planes to 1, and I've been on the other end and enjoyed it just as little simply because there was no chance in hell I was going to get that kill.
No, my strategy is not specifically to bring more alt or more planes to the fight. It's to wait until my opponent makes a critical mistake that I can exploit. It could be getting way too low, it could be showing me his six at the wrong moment, it could be taking on a 1v2, it could be him doing something newbish, it could be climbing at the wrong time, or it could be him falling for my rope. Usually if the fight is already a gang, I stay out of it.
In other words my strategy is to fly "smarter". I enjoy an ACM dueling challenge now and then, but to engage in one with a Spixteen in an "inferior plane" Co-E in an arena filled with people more than ready to pick you is just not flying smarter. I might show him a merge and gauge his skill level based on his response to it and if I see I can take him down quickly, I'll engage. If not, it's usually a waste of time.
It's a better counter to Spixteens than screaming about them on 200 or comforting yourself that it was "just the plane". It seems Steve and I agree on our philosophies on handling spixteens. :salute
And back to the newb Spit16 vs average pilot Other Plane. Since we are not talking about the "best way" to fly them and we are not talking about ace pilots either, we'll assume both people make mistakes. Sure the Spixteen punishes mistakes less, but it also PRODUCES more mistakes. Since other people tell you it's an uber plane, the newb will be overconfident. Since it turns very well, the Spixteen will tend to burn energy quickly as its newb pilot attempts to haul his nose around. Since its climb rate is so good, the newb will use the Spixteen to try to follow somebody's rope. Since it's an uber plane, the newb will chase a faster aircraft and run straight into a gaggle of enemies.
I know because I've been that Spixteen newb before! Sure all these problems can be avoided if the pilot flies SMART (ding ding ding do we see a pattern here?), but we are again talking about a newb flying it. The average pilot may have a more uphill battle, but he's flying a "challenging aircraft" for a reason right? The reason starting with "ch" and rhyming with "allenge".
I guess my philosophy about these "uber" rides is: why blame something you can't change when there are things you can change? You could work on being a better pilot and picking better fights. If you can't handle those two... you could always just change back to the Spixteen yourself.
Nowadays if I get shot down by a spixteen while I'm flying my 109 or 190, it's pretty plain to me that I should not have engaged in the first place or that I should have disengaged when my advantage ran out. Then I hear the old Top Gun line running in my head: "The Department of Defense regrets to inform you that your sons are dead because they were stupid."
-
The best fights I've had are better pilots then myself in a spit XVI and getting shot down.
It tells me that although I thought I had flown that plane to its limits I've still got things to learn.
This thread forgoes one big point. By flying this plane one (a newb for instance) can concentrate on learning ACM, and not concentrate on learning the particulars of a plane itself.
-
Boomerlu, there a many reasons why someone chooses to fly something other than the XVI. Just because they are more challenging doesn't mean that's why they are chosen.
It might be for history, or for variety, or for looks, etc. The only reason why we call these other aircraft "challenging" is because we are comparing them to the XVI. Otherwise I would say aircraft like the P-51, 109G, P-38, F4U are easy.
-
Boomerlu, there a many reasons why someone chooses to fly something other than the XVI.
Like the Yak-3 Gavagai? :lol
-
Boomerlu, there a many reasons why someone chooses to fly something other than the XVI. Just because they are more challenging doesn't mean that's why they are chosen.
It might be for history, or for variety, or for looks, etc. The only reason why we call these other aircraft "challenging" is because we are comparing them to the XVI. Otherwise I would say aircraft like the P-51, 109G, P-38, F4U are easy.
If you really wanted to you could say every plane is "easy mode" because of game functions...but I'm curious as to why you say the P38 and 109's are? Even the F4U...it's easy in some aspects but its a hard plane to mastre...
-
Don't read into that too much spikes. I listed those aircraft because they are all capable in the arena, it's not difficult to aim their guns, and their flight models don't have many nasty surprises; still, all are challenging when compared to the XVI.
To me, genuinely difficult aircraft would be the Yak-9T, 190F-8, P-39Q, P-47D-25, etc. These are aircraft with enough persormance to be competitive, but which require a lot of the pilot to make use of it.
-
Don't read into that too much spikes. I listed those aircraft because they are all capable in the arena, it's not difficult to aim their guns, and their flight models don't have many nasty surprises; still, all are challenging when compared to the XVI.
To me, genuinely difficult aircraft would be the Yak-9T, 190F-8, P-39Q, P-47D-25, etc. These are aircraft with enough persormance to be competitive, but which require a lot of the pilot to make use of it.
Ahh, gotcha.
<S>
-
Boomerlu, there a many reasons why someone chooses to fly something other than the XVI. Just because they are more challenging doesn't mean that's why they are chosen.
It might be for history, or for variety, or for looks, etc. The only reason why we call these other aircraft "challenging" is because we are comparing them to the XVI. Otherwise I would say aircraft like the P-51, 109G, P-38, F4U are easy.
Duly noted. Still, my point stands - better to improve (whether it's ACM, smarter flying, or plane choice) than to complain. For whatever reason, a bunch of us choose not to "improve" our plane choice (myself included), you've just listed more reasons why we don't. :lol
-
This thread forgoes one big point. By flying this plane one (a newb for instance) can concentrate on learning ACM, and not concentrate on learning the particulars of a plane itself.
What particulars are you thinking of? I'm guessing you mean that the 16 is good enough at everything that it can be flown in any style. Am I reading you right?
-
Duly noted. Still, my point stands - better to improve (whether it's ACM, smarter flying, or plane choice) than to complain. For whatever reason, a bunch of us choose not to "improve" our plane choice (myself included), you've just listed more reasons why we don't. :lol
What do you mean by "improve our plane choice?"
-
What do you mean by "improve our plane choice?"
I mean choose a plane that is "better" in some (or many) way. I'm not trying to pick a fight here.
-
Well, I don't think the Spit XVI is best in any absolute sense. Its good points are magnified in a low altitude dueling situation. For multi-vs-multi engagements, with plenty of room below, the traditional BnZ aircraft are better, e.g. P-51, 190D-9, etc.
I mean choose a plane that is "better" in some (or many) way. I'm not trying to pick a fight here.
Don't worry. I'm not the type to rip into someone just because. ;)
-
Well, I don't think the Spit XVI is best in any absolute sense. Its good points are magnified in a low altitude dueling situation. For multi-vs-multi engagements, with plenty of room below, the traditional BnZ aircraft are better, e.g. P-51, 190D-9, etc.
Ahh your point was just that "better" is situational. Yeah, several planes are faster than it, several planes are better armed, etc etc.
What I mean is simply this: instead of a pilot complaining about the Spixteen, he/she would be better served [1] Becoming a better pilot. [2] Exercising better tactical judgment (ie not flying stupidly) [3] Simply giving in and flying the Spixteen (assuming the pilot's too lazy to do [1] or [2]).
Don't worry. I'm not the type to rip into someone just because. ;)
All right, no problem them.
From where I was sitting it sounded like I had insulted your favorite ride and you were out to angrily defend it :lol. I've had this happen in a variety of different contexts (music for example), and the question that sets up the angry defense is usually along the lines of "What do you mean by "better"?"
Whenever I hear words like that I go into paranoid mode :noid.
-
I am not sure the 16 is the easiest to get kills in. On paper yes and then the 8. However on paper it would be the 14 which is a major handfull just when it comes to aiming apart from all its other quirks. Perhaps the 9 is infact the best balance and in my experience the best of the lot. With a perk value of 20 and no Flak from other players thrown in ;):D.
Sure its less able to run than the other 3 but you are also less likely to tear your wings off and more likely to score hits which mean you dont have to run in the first place. Its also by far the best high up in my opinion. The 14 is definately your man on paper here but in practice its very difficult again to hit anything with its built in instability.
-
I am not sure the 16 is the easiest to get kills in. On paper yes and then the 8. However on paper it would be the 14 which is a major handfull just when it comes to aiming apart from all its other quirks. Perhaps the 9 is infact the best balance and in my experience the best of the lot. With a perk value of 20 and no Flak from other players thrown in ;):D.
Sure its less able to run than the other 3 but you are also less likely to tear your wings off and more likely to score hits which mean you dont have to run in the first place. Its also by far the best high up in my opinion. The 14 is definately your man on paper here but in practice its very difficult again to hit anything with its built in instability.
If you quantified the degrees of yaw and pitch bounce that occur when you try to hold the nose on a single point, the XIV would not be so great on paper anymore. It's only because we don't attempt to put a number on that characteristic that you can say the XIV looks better on paper than it is in fact.
-
I havent flown the 14 since it was "fixed."
Will have to give it a whirl tonight.
-
If you quantified the degrees of yaw and pitch bounce that occur when you try to hold the nose on a single point, the XIV would not be so great on paper anymore. It's only because we don't attempt to put a number on that characteristic that you can say the XIV looks better on paper than it is in fact.
Exactly:aok :salute
-
I saw one today. For real.
-
I havent flown the 14 since it was "fixed."
Will have to give it a whirl tonight.
I have found it to be a bit longer legged, and more enjoyable since the fix. Get her slow though and she is till that awful untamed beast we all remember!
-
I have found it to be a bit longer legged, and more enjoyable since the fix. Get her slow though and she is till that awful untamed beast we all remember!
I get k/d 2:1 in the 9 but barely 1:1 in the 14 even atacking high bombers.
Can't hit stuff in the 14 for some reason, maybe I am going to fast but I find it hard to get the guns to bare on the target for more than a split second. 9 seems like the best gun platform by a long way of them all.
Seafire handles the best for me as I rarely fly the 5 but the seafire lacks the pace for the MA particularly the climb rate.
I think our 9 has an earlier engine than the 8 and 16 and that is why its slower. Ok up at 25k it may have an edge and maybe thats all it is but I think it benefits from the lack of power in many situations if your not an ace.
-
Well, I don't think the Spit XVI is best in any absolute sense.
True - its not the best plane in any absolute sense. However, the sum of its parts makes it what it is.
Consider, for arguments sake, that it doesnt do any single 'thing' as well as another plane in the set. The 190A5 can outroll it, the 109K4 can out climb it, the P-51D can out-zoom it, the P47D can out-dive it and the A6M2 can out-turn it.
The reason the 16 is so deadly is because it can do *everything* at 95%. Every other aircraft listed above has, with the exception of the positive trait mentioned, one or several areas of performance which are markedly inferior.
In simple terms, again - the 16 has no glaring weakness.
Pilots being equal, each of the above aircraft has a single tactic to employ against the 16 with a chance of success. The inverse is not so. The 16 has a myriad of tactics - many of which can be deployed at the drop of a hat - to counter any then current disadvantage.
-
lol yarb's post made me check my k/d. It is 3.7 (most all in the 38)
Comparing k/d to your previous months may be ok, but don't try comparing to others as it is a poor way to compare unless you know if they fly like you do or in the same aircraft.
-
lol yarb's post made me check my k/d. It is 3.7 (most all in the 38)
Comparing k/d to your previous months may be ok, but don't try comparing to others as it is a poor way to compare unless you know if they fly like you do or in the same aircraft.
I give a rat's arse about your K/D, noob! I just know I have fun flying with you and your ilk.
-
True - its not the best plane in any absolute sense. However, the sum of its parts makes it what it is.
Consider, for arguments sake, that it doesnt do any single 'thing' as well as another plane in the set. The 190A5 can outroll it,
Nope. According to the roll rate figures, SpitXVI rolls better somewhat better at 200mph IAS. The 190A5 rolls somewhat better at 300mph IAS. Call it a wash.
the 109K4 can out climb it,
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/genchart.php?p1=86&p2=1&pw=1>ype=2)
Keep in mind that in actual combat, the SpitXVI's lighter wingloading and thus E-retention under Gs will make it perform *better* in the E-fight than on paper. Again, call it a wash.
the P-51D can out-zoom it
This is false. When I tested various fighters in vertical zooms starting at 400mph from the deck, there was no significant and repeatable trend in height regained. From 400mph every type I tested could be zoomed to 6000 feet and some hundreds of feet before stall. The sole exception was for the P-38, owing to that airplanes ability to zoom to almost no airspeed easily. Even that edge was only a few hundred feet above the single engine jobs, on average. Of course, once again, in actual combat from an equal footing as opposed to artificial zoom tests, the SpitXVI's thrust/weight and E-retention under Gs will put it way ahead of what it does "on paper" in vertical fighting.
-
lol yarb's post made me check my k/d. It is 3.7 (most all in the 38)
Comparing k/d to your previous months may be ok, but don't try comparing to others as it is a poor way to compare unless you know if they fly like you do or in the same aircraft.
Doesnt k/d give and indication of their style of flying as in gung ho or like to land kills.
-
Doesnt k/d give and indication of their style of flying as in gung ho or like to land kills.
Not necessarily. One can fly "timid" and in a pure picking mode and get a K/D of only 1.5 because he sucks, while someone else can fly gung-ho all the time and still get 5.0
To get a indication about there flying style from stats alone you have to look at the whole picture, particularly k/s and k/h. And even that can sometimes be misleading. For example if you fly at non-peak times, it's more difficult to get a very high k/s and k/h.
-
Not necessarily. One can fly "timid" and in a pure picking mode and get a K/D of only 1.5 because he sucks, while someone else can fly gung-ho all the time and still get 5.0
To get a indication about there flying style from stats alone you have to look at the whole picture, particularly k/s and k/h. And even that can sometimes be misleading. For example if you fly at non-peak times, it's more difficult to get a very high k/s and k/h.
Yes agreed the data needs carefull interpretation and one flyer may like to fly a p40 another a tempest but all this is buried among the stats.
-
Whole bunch of stuff
...and?
-
...and?
Your 95% figure was understating the case. No offense, I just like for the actual numbers to be out there. :salute
-
I was wrong, it was IX I saw. Apparently it had pwned the XVI somewhere over the Cook Strait and pile-it had a recording of Ann Coulter chanting, "It's not the plane it's the pilot" swamping all available radio frequencies.